TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 - A/86862/2018 - Dated:- 29-6-2018 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) Shri Sachin Chitnis, Advocate for Appellant Shri V.K. Agarwal Addl.Commr. (A.R) for respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra This is an appeal filed against order-in-original No. 05/Commr (KAP)/LTU/2010 dt. 30.06.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, LTU Mumbai. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of PVC pipes and fittings falling under Chapter Heading No. 3917 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have availed benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-CE dt. 1.3.2002 on clearance of their PVC pipes to water treatmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch on the said issue as it has been considered by this Tribunal in Electrosteel Casting Ltd. (Supra). After analyzing the said notification the Tribunal observed as follows: 8. After hearing both sides and perusal of the case records, we find that in the impugned Notification, pipes needed for delivery of water from its source to the plant and from there to the storage facilities have been exempted subject to the requirement of obtaining a certificate from the Collector, District Magistrate, Deputy Commissioner of the District in which the plant is located. We find that the required certificates have been obtained by the Respondents clearly showing that the impugned pipes were needed for delivery of water from the plant to the sto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not be treated as an appellable order, we are unable to agree with the same. By issuing the said letters, the Superintendent sought to deny exemption to the Respondents by putting a restriction on the clearance of the pipes for the public utilities concerned. In fact, the Superintendent violated the instructions of the Department in not issuing a show cause notice and giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondents before passing a non-speaking order. In such a situation, where the Superintendent put a restriction on the clearance, the Respondents had no option but to go to the lower Appellate Authority for redressal of their grievance. Moreover, under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, any person aggrieved by any decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
