TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has been extended in a case where goods were manufactured for use in the construction of break waters of Veraval Port at a private plot at a site which was 1.5 km away from the said port, the appellant will be eligible for the benefit of excise duty under Notification No. 5/2006-CE and subsequent notifications which grant exemption for such goods manufactured at site. In such a view of the matter, we consider it not necessary to examine the valuation aspect of the pipes inasmuch as we hold that no excise duty liability arises on pipes. - Decided in favour of appellant - E/59971/2013 with E/misc/51480/2015, E/59972/2013 with E/Misc/51481/2015, E/60014/2013 with E/misc./51238 & 51994/2015, E/60015/2013 with E/misc./51239 & 51995/2015, E/55 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 434/- E/55342/2014 O-I-O No.51/ COMMR/ IND/CX/2014 dt. 13.05.2014 Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore. Oct. 2011 to Jan. 2012 1075150/- 2. The appellant is engaged in executing various infrastructure works in the State of M.P. The present set of appeals deal with the agreements entered into by the appellant with the Municipal Corporation at Indore/ Raipur for fabrication of RCC pipes and laying the pipes at various depths below the ground level as per the details in the agreement. The contract awarded was for the construction of sewerage system for the city. The Revenue found that the item RCC pipes manufactured by the appellant was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant with Municipal Corporation. The appellant contended that if excise duty is to be charged then it needs to be charged on value of the pipes arrived at on the basis of Cost Accountant certificate prepared on the basis of CAS-4 Costing Standards. In this way they have claimed that the duty demandable would be significantly reduced. 5. Heard Shri Sujit Ghosh, ld. Counsel for the appellant as well as Sh. Yogesh Agarwal, ld. DR for the Revenue. 6. The relevant provision of the Notifications are given below. For ready reference and quick appreciation thereof is as under: 1. Notification No. 5/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 (Sl. No. 10). Goods, in which more than 25% by weight of read mud, pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. It is noteworthy that the entry goods manufactured at the site of construction for use in construction work at such site has been inserted with retrospective effect w.e.f. 01.03.2006. W.e.f. 17.03.2012, in Notification No. 12/2012, an Explanation has been added which has expanded the meaning of the word site of construction to include any premises made available for the manufacture of goods by way of a specific mention in the contract or agreement or such construction work provided that the goods manufactured at such premises are solely used in such construction work. 8. Now we turn to the facts of the impugned order before us. Sh. Sujit Ghosh, ld. Counsel for the appellant, during his submissions elaborately argued that in all the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification No. 12/2012 dated 17.08.2012, the alternate sites at which fabrication has been done may be considered as the site of construction of pipes for use in the sewerage system. Ld. Commissioner in the impugned orders has taken the view that such an explanation would be applicable only prospectively and will not come to the aid of the appellant for prior periods. We find it difficult to accept this view. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to Circular No. 456/22/99-CX dated 18.05.1999 issued by CBEC which has dealt with a similar issue, though in the context of beams and girders fabricated at site. In the said circular CBEC has advised in para 2 as follows: 2. The matter has been examined by the Board. It has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
