Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Finolex Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune

2017 (1) TMI 599 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Benefit of exemption N/N. 3/2004-CE dated 8.1.2004 - denial on the ground that the project for which pipes were supplied has not fulfilled all the conditions inasmuch as there is no water supply plant and no storage facility of the water - Held that: - the water supply plant not only include the plant of demineralization or purification of the water but water supply plant also if any plant which is built for water supply, it is covered by the term ‘water supply plant”. There is no dispute that t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. - Both the conditions of existence of water supply plant and storage facility are fulfilled - appellants are entitled for the exemption notification No. 3/2004-CE - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1581/06 - A/94679/16/EB - Dated:- 20-12-2016 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Advocate, for Appellant Shri V.K. Shastri, AC (AR), for Respondent Per: Ramesh Nair The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of PVC pipes .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

004, according to which, pipes which are needed for delivery of water from its source to the plant and from there to storage facility are exempted. She submits that the pipes were laid down from source of the water to the pumping station and thereafter at the time of delivery of water through discharge chamber. She submits that the pumping station is water supply plant and the discharge chamber is storage of the water. Therefore, both the conditions are fulfilled. Accordingly, the appellant is e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the notification. She also relied on the following decisions: - (i) Koya & Co. Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2013 (298) EKT 232 (T). (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Vs IVRCL Infrastructure & Projects Ltd. - 2009 (240) ELT 606 (Tri). (iii) Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2012 (280) ELT 552 (T). (iv) Samruddhi Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2012 (280) ELT 537 (T). 3. On the other hand, Sh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version