TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exempted pipes needed for delivery of water from its source to the plant and from there to the storage facility. In this case the pipes were being supplied for transporting effluent to treatment plants and treated water from the plant to the industrial units. The Revenue wants to deny exemption to the pipes which were used for transmission of water from the treatment plant to the industrial units. This denial is clearly not covered by the notification which exempts both pipes needed for delivery of water from its source to the plant as well as from there to the storage facility. The Revenue has not made out a case that storage facility is located in the plant only and not in the units which received the water. Adjustment of ₹ 68,72 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... District Collector regarding the use of the pipes in the project. In the instant case, the District Collector Coimbatore had issued the required certificates and appellant claimed the benefit of exemption notification. However, the department was of the opinion that the appellant s supplies were not covered by the exemption notification and at the instance of the Department, the District Collector cancelled the certificates which he had issued and the appellant paid the excise duty and pursued the matter with CBEC. CBEC clarified that the appellant is covered by the exemption notification. Thereafter the appellant obtained fresh certificates from the District Collector and filed a refund claim for the duty already paid by them. A show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 05/2012, dated 13.02.2012, set aside the order-in-original of the lower authority and allowed the appeal of the assessee, thereby sanctioning refund as per revised claim of ₹ 1,59,24,128/- to the respondent assessee. The second appeal by the Revenue No. E/1173/2012 is against this Order-in-Appeal No. 05/2012, dated 13.02.2012. 3. It emerges from the records and submissions made by both the parties that in the first appeal No. E/1798/2011, it is the contention of the department that the fresh certificates issued by the District Collector have no nexus with the original certificates issued by them and therefore they cannot be held as having been issued in lieu of the original certificates. Therefore, the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on est. They are not relying on the first set of certificates any longer. They are relying on the second set of certificates according to which they are legitimately entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 03/2004-CE, dated 08.01.2004 and this was correctly granted by the first appellate authority. He would further submit that even the second set of certificates did not cover their full quantity of pipes used and some quantity was not covered and exemption to such quantity of pipes was disallowed by the first appellate authority in the impugned order. They have accepted this disallowance and thereafter revised their refund claim. They could have approached the District Collector for a further revision to cover the quantity which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turer could not have availed CENVAT Credit under CCR 2004 or should have reversed the amount under Rule 6 of CCR 2004 and sought to recover the same from the respondent assessee. Both these contentions were rejected by the first appellate authority. Revenue supports the contentions of the original authority. 7. After examining the matter and the notification No. 03/2004-CE, dated 08.01.2004, we find that notification exempted pipes needed for delivery of water from its source to the plant and from there to the storage facility. In this case the pipes were being supplied for transporting effluent to treatment plants and treated water from the plant to the industrial units. The Revenue wants to deny exemption to the pipes whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|