9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09/2002. The wording of the original notification has been retained in the new notification substantially. The CBEC Circular referred to in the certificate issued by the District Collector dt. 06/09/2002 was issued in the context of exemption N/N. 47/2002 dt. 06/09/2022. The goods covered by the said certificate are intended for construction of water treatment plant for Krishna Drinking Water Supply Project. The fact that the certificate has mentioned a different N/N. 3/2004 dt. 08/01/2004 cannot take away the substantial benefit intended for setting up of water treatment plant for drinking water supply project - Mistake in mentioning the wrong notification number cannot be the sole reason for denying the benefit to the assessee which th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for desalination, demineralization or purification of water or for carrying out any similar process or processes intended to make the water fit for human or animal consumption, but does not include a plant supplying water for industrial purposes. 3. The relevant Certificate dt. 24/02/2006 issued by the District Collector, Nalgonda mentions clearly that the motors are meant for water treatment plants of Krishna Drinking Water Project. The details of the goods are specified and there is no dispute about the same. The certificate further refers to the CEBEC Circular No.659/50/2002-CX dt. 06/09/2002 but mentioned the Notification No.3/2004 dt. 08/01/2004 instead of the correct Notification No.6/2006. 4. The authorities below denied the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide the demand in similar cases, in particular he refers to (a). Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. Vs. CCE C, Nashik [2017(358) ELT 677 (Tri. Mum.)]; (b). Lanco Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Tirupathi [2010(253) ELT 70 (Tri. Bang.)] and (c). Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. Vs. CCE, Coimbatore [2016(343) ELT 562 (Tri. Chennai)] 7. Learned AR however justified the impugned order. He submitted that the notification which was required to be specified on the date of clearance of the goods was Notification No.6/2006 dt. 01/03/2006. This notification has not been mentioned in the certificate issued by the District Collector and the appellant has also not submitted any amendment/ correction to such certificate. He also submitted that the Notification No.3/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier Notification No.47/2002 dt. 06/09/2002. The wording of the original notification has been retained in the new notification substantially. The CBEC Circular referred to in the certificate issued by the District Collector dt. 06/09/2002 was issued in the context of exemption Notification No.47/2002 dt. 06/09/2022. 11. After carefully perusing the certificate issued by the District Collector, we are convinced that the goods covered by the said certificate are intended for construction of water treatment plant for Krishna Drinking Water Supply Project. The fact that the certificate has mentioned a different Notification No.3/2004 dt. 08/01/2004, in our view, cannot take away the substantial benefit intended for setting up of water tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
