9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (AR) for the Appellant. Shri B. Venugopal, Advocate for the Respondent. [Order per: M.V. Ravindran] This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in- Appeal No. 36/2009 (H-I) CE dated 21.05.2009. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of records, it transpires that in the case in hand, the respondents are manufacturers of H.D.P.E pipes falling under Chapter 39 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of the predecessor in his office. 4. Learned Departmental Representative takes the Bench through the entire case records and submits that the pipes which are cleared by the respondent are used not only for the pipes for delivery of water from its source to the water treatment / supply plant and further also. It is his submission that the benefit of notification can be extended only till th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of CCE, C & ST (A-III) Hyderabad Vs. IVRCL Infrastructures & Projects Ltd., [2009 (240) ELT 606 (Tri. - Bang.)] and submits that the issue was decided in favour of the respondent therein; IVRCL was similarly placed as is the respondent herein. It is his submission that this judgement of the Tribunal in the case of IVRCL Infrastructures & Projects Ltd., is upheld by the Apex Court by dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issue is now squarely covered in favour of the respondent. We hold that the appeal filed by the Revenue needs to be rejected and the impugned order needs to be upheld.
7. The impugned order is upheld as correct, legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. The appeal of the Revenue stands rejected.
(Operative part of this order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
