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. The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., V. Karunakaran, C. Sridharan, S. Rajendran Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli

2017 (9) TMI 695 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Exemption under N/N. 6/2002 dated 1.3.2002 - water supply scheme projects - Revenue held a view that wherever there is no treatment plant the whole exemption will not apply - Held that: - similar issue decided in the case of Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs-Nashik [2017 (3) TMI 990 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that where certificates are the qualification for exemption, it is not open to the central excise authority to overrule that certification .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal Nos. E/34 to 37/2009 - Final Order Nos. 41985-41988 / 2017 - Dated:- 6-9-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Raghavan Ramabhadran, Advocate for the Appellants Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) and Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per B. Ravichandran These four appeals are against common impugned order dated 21.10.2008 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Tir .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ls is that the appellants have collected certain amount towards excise duty and did not discharge the same in the Government account in time. Accordingly, in terms of section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, proceedings were initiated against them to recover the said amount. The case was adjudicated resulting in the impugned order. The Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 75,61,020/- due to denial of exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE and ₹ 62,28,2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

section 11D, the ld. Counsel submitted that as per contractual terms, the consideration of supply of pipes is inclusive of excise duty. Since the contracts are running and the clearance happened with or without duty depending upon the period and certificates under Notification No.6/2002, the Revenue entertained a view that all inclusive consideration will indicate that the appellants have collected certain amount representing excise duty and as such should have paid the said amount to the Govern .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nder section 11D. The ld. Counsel relied upon various case laws in support of his both contentions. 5. The ld. AR opposes the appeals. He submitted that there is no water treatment plant in many of the projects for which the PSC pipes were supplied by the appellant. The requirement for exemption is that the pipes should be used from source to plant and plant to the storage. In the absence of plant for treatment to make the water fit for human consumption, the exemption is not available to the im .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ding the liability of the appellant under Notification No. 6/2002-CE, we note that all supplies of pipes are made in terms of the certificate issued by the jurisdictional District Collectors. The certificates categorically mentioned the requirement of pipes for the projects referring to the above mentioned Notification. However, the Revenue held a view that wherever there is no treatment plant the whole exemption will not apply. Here we note that this is against the certificate issued by the Dis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Irrigation Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2017-TIOL-918-CESTAT-MUM; M/s. Laxmi Pipes and Fittings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2017-TIOL-2160-CESTAT-DEL and in the appellant s own case vide Final Order No. 42123/2016 dated 1.11.2016. In view of the consistent finding of the Tribunal, on similar set of facts, we find denial of exemption is not tenable. Here we also note that the ld. counsel submitted that the treatment plant does not mean an elaborate establishmen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

credit of the Central Government. Sub-section (1A) is added with effect from 10.5.2008 and the same is not applicable to the period in dispute in the present appeals. Sub-section (1) only talks about collecting any amount in excess of excise duty, representing as excise duty. Apparently, in the present case, the invoice raised by the appellant did not represent any excise duty. However, Revenue proceeded against them only on the inference that the contract being inclusive of duty payable it wil .....

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