TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raw material.Therefore, non-mentioning of Notification No. 3/2004-CE in the said certificate obtained from the District Collector can at best be described as a minor technical infraction and for such minor technical discrepancy in the said certificate, the substantive benefit granted under an exemption notification should not be denied - Decided in favour of assessee. . - E/275, 276, 277 & 273/09 - - - Dated:- 7-7-2011 - Mr.P.G. Chacko, Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. For Appellant: Mr. G. Natarajan, Advocate For Respondent: Mr. P.N. Das, SDR Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan 1. These appeals are directed against the Order-in-Original No. 21/2008 dated 29.12.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows. 2.1 The main appellant M/s Samrudhi Industries are manufacturers of MS Pipes and supplied these pipes on behalf of M/s Nagarjuna Construction Corporation Ltd, Hyderabad and these pipes were utilized for supplying drinking water in MIHAN area at Nagpur. These pipes were laid for carrying raw water from the source at Wadgaon reservoir to the Treatment Plant at MIHAN area. These pipes were cleared w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lable inasmuch as water has been supplied not only for the purpose of human or animal consumption but also for industrial purposes. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 28.5.2002 was issued demanding Central Excise duty of Rs 5,44,70,146/- under Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, interest thereon under Section 11AB of the said Act and also proposing to impose penalty under Section 11AC of the said Act in respect of the clearances of pipes made for the period from April, 2007 to March 2008. 2.4 The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur, who vide the impugned order, confirmed the duty demand alongwith interest thereon and also imposed an equivalent amount of penalty on the main appellant. A penalty of Rs 1,00,000/- each was imposed on M/s Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd, the main contractor and also on M/s Maharashtra Airport Development Co Ltd, the nodal agency for the project under the provisions of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Further, a penalty of Rs 5,00,000/- was imposed on Mr. Pawan Vithaldas Tapadiya, partner of the appellant company under the provisions of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is supplied for industrial purposes, that cannot be a ground for denying the exemption on the pipes which have been mainly used for supply of water for animal or human consumption. In any case, duty exemption is available on pipes which are used for supply of water both for industrial as well as for non industrial purposes although under two different notifications. 3.1 The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of CC vs Shefali Arts reported in 1999 (114) ELT 928. The said case dealt with Notification No. 159/86-Cus which provided duty exemption on machines used in the processing and manufacturing of gems and jewellery for the purpose of exports. A substantial part of the production was exported but a part of the product was also sold in the local market. The department sought to deny the exemption of the benefit under Notification No. 159/86-Cus on the ground that part of the product was sold in the domestic market. This Tribunal in that case held as follows: The notification requires that the machines should be used in the processing and manufacturing of gems and jewellery for the purpose of exports. If it were the intenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication No. 23/98-Cus of 2.6.98. 3.5 Applying the ratio of the above judgments to the facts of the present case, the learned counsel argues that even if part of the water is supplied for industrial purposes so long as bulk of the water is supplied for consumption by animals or human beings, benefit of exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 cannot be denied on the pipes supplied for such water supply projects. 4 The learned JCDR appearing for the department submits that Notification No. 6/2006 in the Explanation given therein, specifically excludes pipes supplied to a plant supplying water for industrial purposes. The appellant has produced a certificate from the District Collector claiming the benefit under Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. If the appellant wanted to supply pipes for projects involving water supply for industrial purposes they could have claimed the benefit under Notification No. 3/2004-CE which they did not do. He submits that the exemption under Notifications No. 6/2006 and No. 3/2004 are mutually exclusive and therefore, if the pipes have been used for projects which supply water for both industrial and non industrial purposes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
