9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... truction Company Private Limited by availing the benefit of Notification No.47/2002-CE dated 06.09.2002 and the Competent Authority has issued the Certificate for intended use for the said pipes - On going through the said Certificate, it is found that the said Certificate has been issued in pursuance to the Notification No.47/2002-CE dated 06.09.2002 issued by the Ministry of Finance,Government of India and the use of pipes has also been explained. In that circumstances, the said Certificate cannot be doubted as held by this Tribunal in the case of M/S. INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD. VERSUS CCE, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI [ 2016 (11) TMI 1436 - CESTAT CHENNAI] wherein this Tribunal has held that In absence of any proforma prescribed by the Notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 06.09.2002 and Notification No.3/2004-CE dated 08.01.2004 for water treatment and supply projects. While the former was for supply of drinking water for human and animal consumption, the later was for supply of water for agricultural and industrial purpose. 2.2 The buyer i.e. M/s Trichy Construction Company Private Limited was awarded the work of shifting of raw water pumping main for delivery of water from Chembarambakkam Lake to Water Treatment Plant located in the premises of Hyundai Motor Company,SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irungattukottai to make it fit for human consumption by State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited, a State Government Undertaking. Accordingly, the pipes were cleared by the appellant during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Apex Court in the case of Zuari Industries Limited Vs. CCE reported in 2007 (210) ELT 648 (SC) and also held by this Tribunal in the case of Indian Hume Pipe Company Limited Vs. CCE reported in 2017 (9) TMI 695-CESTAT-Chennai, which has been dismissed by the Hon ble Apex Court in respect of the appeal filed by the Revenue. He also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s SIL Vs. CCE reported in 2018 (7) TMI 418 CESTAT-Kolkata.. 4. On the other hand, the ld.A.R. for the Revenue, submitted that under the relevant Notification, the water is to be supplied for human and animal consumption and it is not in the case in hand. Therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit of exemption Notification. 5. Heard both sid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
