9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods are used for the sub station / pumping station as part of the water supply project and not specifically at the water treatment plant. Similar issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of M/S MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD, M/S SUBHASH PROJECTS MARKETING LTD, M/S THE INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER CE ST (LTU) MUMBAI [ 2019 (5) TMI 367 - CESTAT MUMBAI] . The issue under consideration was whether the benefit of Notification is available to the pipes which were used beyond the first storage facility. The Tribunal held that the assessee would be eligible for the benefit of notification. In the case of P C CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM [ 2017 (8) TMI 1045 - CESTAT CHENNAI] , the Tribunal observed that when certificate has been issued by District Collector, and TWAD Board stating that the goods are intended for setting up of the water treatment plant, the department cannot deny the exemption. The issue was in respect to the eligibility of credit on PSC pipes which were used for setting up of the water treatment plant and needed for carrying water from its source to the plant and from there to the storage facility. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plant is located, is produced to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction, to the effect that such goods are cleared for the intended use specified in column (3) of the Table." 3. The department was of the view that certificates issued by the District Collector mentioned that the goods were intended for use in the pumping station for transmission of water to the water treatment plant and not for use at the plant itself. Accordingly, the Department advised the appellant that they were not eligible for exemption of the Notification. The appellants cleared the goods on payment of duty under protest. Subsequently, they filed three refund claims for the duty paid in respect of the goods cleared as per the Notification. 4. Three separate Show Cause Notices were issued proposing to reject the refund claims alleging that the duty paid by them under protest is correct and that the appellants are not eligible for refund. Being aggrieved by such order, the appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide orders impugned herein upheld the order of rejection of refund claims. Hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eatment plants. Without carrying out the activity of pumping the water from the source to the water treatment plant the activity of treatment of water at the plant so as to make it potable cannot take place. 7. The Ld. Counsel adverted to the decisions in the case of P & C constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC & CE, Salem 2017 (8) TMI 1045 CESTAT, Chennai to argue that when the certificate has been issued by the District Collector or the Board authorities certifying that the goods are intended for the purpose of the water treatment plant, the department cannot deny the exemption stating that the goods are not intended for setting up of the water treatment plants. 8. The decision in the case of M/s The Indian Hume Pipe company Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Madurai 2017 (11) TMI 1322 - CESTAT, Chennai was relied by the Ld. Counsel to argue that when the pipes supplied were intended to carry the water from the source to the water treatment plant, the benefit of exemption under Notification No.6/2002- CE, dated 1/3/2002 was held to be eligible. 9. In the case of M/s. Man Industries (India) Ltd. and Others Versus Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax (LTU) Mumbai 2019 (5) TMI 367 CESTAT, Mum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he water treatment plant for pumping of water to the Water Treatment Plant. The goods as such are not for use at the Plant itself. The certificate issued by the District authority only certifies the use of the goods for electro-mechanical and hydro- mechanical sub-station equipment for kondopakka and Mallaram pumping station, as part of the water supply project and not specifically at the water treatment plant. The intention of the notification as explained in para supra is that the goods cleared under the said notification should be used in setting up water treatment plant and the same are not for use at the place of source) This is evident from the entry 2 which reads as "pipes needed for delivery of water from its source to the plant and from there to the storage facility and in other words the notification is very that only pipes needed for delivery of water from the its source to the plant and from there to the storage facility is eligible and no other goods used at the place of source of water for pumping of water is eligible for the exemption. In view of the above, since the goods supplied have not been used for setting up of water treatment plant, but only for setting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er treatment plant and excludes the supply of water for industrial purposes. The explanation does not anywhere say that goods used for the project has to be excluded. In fact para 1 of the Notification exemption applies to all goods required for setting up of water treatment plant. For setting up of water treatment plant, it is necessary to have the water carried through pipes from the source to the water treatment plant. Needless to say that such activity of carrying the water from the source to the treatment plant can take place only if there is a pumping station. The present goods cleared by the appellants are used in the pumping station. In para 14, the Original authority has discussed that the certificate issued by the Government Authority only states that the goods are used for the pumping station and for the water supply project. Thus benefit of exemption has been denied by stating that the goods are not used in the water treatment plant. In our view, the pumping station as well as the pipes that carry the water from the source to the water treatment plant are integral part of setting up of water treatment plant. 15. It is also to be stated that when the Government authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification should have been accordingly worded from the beginning In the absence such a restriction, the Respondents Hive executed the Work Order in respect of Water Treatment plants which are of public utilities and the concerned District Collectors have also given them the necessary certificates in respect of the exemption Notification as it was in its unamended form. Even after amendment, we find that the pipes of higher dimension have been allowed exemption in addition to the pipes required upto the first storage point In other words, the amended Notification also allows exemption to pipes which used beyond the first storage point, but in respect of only higher dimension. As regards the ground of the Department that the communication issued by the Jurisdictional Superintendent should not be treated as an appellable order, we are unable to agree with the same. By issuing the said letters, the Superintendent sought to deny exemption to the Respondents by putting a restriction on the clearance of the pipes for the public utilities concerned In fact, the Superintendent violated the instructions of the Department in not issuing a show cause notice and giving an opportunity hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect to the eligibility of credit on PSC pipes which were used for setting up of the water treatment plant and needed for carrying water from its source to the plant and from there to the storage facility. The Tribunal observed as under: 7. The main ground raised by Revenue is that certificate issued by the District Collector cannot be accepted as the basis for compliances of the condition in the notification. We are able to agree t argument of the Revenue, Ld Counsel for appellant has submitted that certificate has been signed by the District Collector as well as Executive Engineer, TWAD Board but the Revenue has acted upon letter issued by the Executive Engineer, TWAD Special Division Cuddlier whiten to the department seeking information about the exemption of the duty eligible to the appellant ns well as for further information regarding clearances of goods. When the certificate has been issued by the District Collector and well as TWAD Board authorities, we have to say that department cannot deny the exemption by merely red upon a letter issued by Executive Engineer, Special Division, Cuddalore. In the case of Jain Imation Systems Ltd Vs CCE & Customs, Nashik -2017 TIOL-918- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant under Notification No 6/2002-CE, we note that all supplies of pipes are made in terms of the certificate issued by the jurisdictional District Collectors The certificates categorically mentioned the requirement of pipes for the projects referring to the above mentioned Notification. However, the Revenue held a view that wherever there is no treatment plant the whole exemption will not apply. Here we note that this is against the certificate issued by the District Collector Generally, when an exemption notification is to be extended based on a certificate by third party Government authority, such certificates unless repudiated are to be accepted for extending the benefit. Such view has been taken by the Tribunal in various cases A reference can be made to the recent decisions in the cases of P&C Constructions P Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Final Order No. 41721/2017 dated 11.8.2017. The similar decisions can be referred to in Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise 2017-TIOL-918-CESTAT MUM, M/s Laxmi Pipes and Fittings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2017-TIOL-2160-CESTAT-DEL and in the appellant's own case vide Final Order No 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that if there is a composite contract for consideration which show excise duty is inclusive, a demand under section 11D cannot be raised. 10. In the present case, there is no evidence that the sales document namely invoices etc. indicated any excise duty separately so that the buyer has paid any money representing excise duty to the appellant. In the absence of such situation, the provisions of Section 11D cannot be attracted and the impugned order is without merit. 4. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case, involving similar set of facts, we find no merit in the impugned order and accordingly the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed. 19. The Ld. AR has relied upon the decision in the case of Precise Engineer (supra). On perusal of the facts of the case, it is seen that the goods on which exemption was claimed by the appellant was Extension Bellows. The assessee claimed that these are components of water treatment plant. However, the facts do not show that the appellant had produced certificate issued by the District Collector stating that the goods were intended for setting up of water treatment plant. The Ld. AR has also relied u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
