Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 228 - AT - Central ExciseEligibility of exemption under notification no.3/2004-CE dated 8.1.2004 - machineries, appliances and components required for setting up of water supply plants - certificate issued by Dy.Commissioner of the District in which the project is located not produced - Held that:- Perusal of the invoice dated 4.5.2005, the purchase order dated 16.2.2005 placed by M/s.VATECH WABAG Ltd. and excise duty certificate issued by M/s/ VATECH WABAG Ltd. and other correspondence submitted by the appellants make it clear that the impugned goods have been cleared by the appellant to the specified units. The appellants supplied the items as sub-contractor for the project. We find that exemption available to sub-contractors in similar type of notifications was examined in the case of Hy-TUF Steels Pvt. Ltd. (2013 (10) TMI 1382 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD )Madras) as relying on Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (7) TMI 244 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that when the machineries were ultimately put in use by the sub-contractor, who are given the job, the exemption cannot be denied. It was observed that in the absence of allegation of possible mis-use of the goods, for unintended purposes, the beneficial notification issued in public interest cannot be denied. In the present case, we find that the denial of exemption is only on the ground that the appellant s name is not figuring in the certificate issued by the District Authority. We find that on perusal of the records, it is clear that the certificate issued in the name of M/s. ONDEO NALCO INDIA LTD also mentions the purchase order placed on M/s. VATECH WABAG Ltd. , who placed the purchase order on the appellants. These facts were established by the documentary evidences. As such, we find no justification for denial of exemption.- Decided in favour of assessee.
|