9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the benefit of exemption Notification Nos. 36/94, dated 1-3-1994 and 51/95 dated 16-3-1995 or not. 2.The facts giving rise to this issue may briefly be stated as under : 3.The appellants, U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. (owned by the U.P. Govt.) are engaged in the construction of flyovers, bridges etc. They got contract for the construction of Arterial expressway corridor project from the J&K Government in the year 1994. The J&K Government also provided them, a dedicated facility in the form of land free of cost near Bag-e-Bahu for the purposes of casting of the beams to be used in the construction. They accordingly did casting of the beams at that place and later on brought the same to the site of the construction where these were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng and shall include any premises made available to the manufacture of the goods, under the Contract/Agreement provided the goods manufactured at such premises are solely used in the said construction work only. Since the beams were manufactured at the site provided to them by the Government under the contract and were used solely for the construction work at site, were eligible for the benefit of Notifications Nos. 36/94 dated 1-3-94 and 51/95 dated 16-3-95. 4.The adjudicating authority (Commissioner) did not, however, agree with the contention of the appellants on the ground that since the goods were not manufactured at the site of construction, the benefit of Notifications No. 36/94 and 51/95 could not be given to the appellants and so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el, has only reiterated the correctness of the impugned order of the Commissioner. 7.We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 8.The facts are not at all much in dispute. Admittedly the appellants, (U.P. State Undertaking fully owned by the U.P. Government) entered into contract for construction of Arterial expressway corridor project at Jammu, with the J&K Government. They were allotted site by the J & K Government free of cost near Bag-e-Bahu for casting beams to be used in the said construction. The beams so manufactured by them were classifiable under Heading 68.07 of the CETA. They claimed exemption from payment of duty on these beams in terms of Notifications Nos. 59/90 dated 20-3-90, 36/94 dated 1-3-94, 51/95 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ression "at site" as used in the above referred notifications by loosing sight of well-known principle that where a particular notification had been issued for extending the benefit to the assessees, it must be interpreted in such a manner that the intended benefit is actually enjoyed/availed by them and not that they are particularly deprived of the same, by the authorities implementing the said notification. The above referred notifications exempting the goods manufactured at the site of construction for use in the construction work at such site, had been issued by the Government with the sole object of extending their benefits to the companies/contractors engaged in the construction of the flyovers, bridges etc. The expression 'manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for casting of the beams to be used in the construction work, as the said site was surrounded by busy terminals, inter section market and residential localities and the casting of beams at that place itself must have posed danger to the public health and safety and also cause a frequent traffic jams, accidents etc. Therefore, under these circumstances to disallow the benefit of exemption notifications referred above regarding payment of duty on the beams on the ground that these were not manufactured at the actual site of constructions, would defeat the very purpose for which the same had been issued. 13.In an indentical case M/s. Pratibha Industries v. CCE, Bombay, decided vide Final Order No. 380-387/97-D dated 8-5-97, wherein the benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and observed that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the notifications in question referred to above. 15.The expression "site" appearing in Notification No. 5/98 dated 2-6-98 referred to above prescribing nil rate of duty in respect of the goods manufactured at the site of construction for use in construction work at such site, has been clarified by the CBEC through Circular No. 456/22/99-CX., dated 18-5-99. The relevant portion that circular runs as under :- "The matter has been examined by the Board. It has been decided that the expression 'site' may not be given a restrictive meaning and shall include any premises made available to the manufacturer of goods falling under Heading No. 68.07 of the Schedule to the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
