9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. away from break water when the said goods are supposed to be placed. It is also a fact that the appellant fabricated the tetrapodes at a hired private plot in the acquisition of which GMB has played a role. The tetrapodes, as mentioned earlier are being fabricated by the appellant in terms of the contract and were being cleared to the place where they are required to be installed. The question for consideration is whether in terms of Notification Nos. 5/98-C.E., dt. 2-6-98, 5/99-C.E., dt. 20-2-99 and 6/2000-C.E., dt. 1-3-2000 the goods under question are exempt from payment of duty. The said notifications exempt goods failing under Chapter 68.07 of CETA when manufactured at site. There is no dispute that the goods in question fall under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that a notification has to be strictly construed etc. before the benefit of a notification is extended to an assessee. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The Board's circular referred to by the Commissioner takes note of the fact that several disputes have arisen on the interpretation of the word 'site' in Notification No. 5/98-C.E. After considering various representations the Board has decided that the expression 'site' may not be given a restrictive meaning and shall include any premises made available to the manufacture of goods falling under Heading No. 68.07 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 by way of a specific mention in the contract for such construction work provided that the goods manufactured at site premises are solely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y when the principal has allotted the site of construction to the contractor. In the present case the only difference appears to be that the principal has not allotted the site but has helped the contractor (the appellant) in procuring the site where the tetrapodes could be fabricated. This could hardly be a reason to deny a substantial benefit accruing to the appellant. The goods fabricated of the appellant fall under the tariff heading mentioned in the notification and the entire goods produced at this site were used in the construction of break waters as stipulated in the contract.
6. In the light of what has been discussed above, we set aside the order of the Commissioner and allow the appeal. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
