TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority having not recorded any findings or reasoning for denial of exemption to appellant, this particular point needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority - Matter on remand. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - Appeal No. E/114/2009 - A/30910/2018 - Dated:- 8-8-2018 - Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And Mr. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri R. Sudhinder, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Bhanu Kiran, Asst. Commissioner/AR for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per: M.V. Ravindran] 1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 03/2008- C.Ex., dated 17.11.2008. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration after filtering out unnecessary details are, the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have also supplied PSC pipes of 470mm and 520 mm diameter which are not eligible for exemption, as not covered by the certificate. Learned Counsel submits that the issue is now settled by the decision of Tribunal in their own case as reported at [2012- 280-ELT-552] and produced a copy of the same. He also submits similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of CCEC ST, Hyderabad Vs IVRCL Infrastructures and Projects Ltd [2009-240-ELT-A-134]. 3. Learned departmental representative draws our attention to the certificates issued by the Collector and submits that these certificates are only in regard to the PSC pipes of 450 500mm diameter and appellant had supplied pipes which are of 470 520mm diameter also. He would submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ouncements as cited herein above, we hold that the demand raised on the appellant on the pipes of 450 and 500mm diameter cannot be upheld and they need to be set aside and we do so. The impugned order to the extent it confirms the demand on this issue is set aside, so also the interest liability and penalty. 7. As regards the denial of exemption for the pipes of 470 and 520mm diameter, as being not covered by the certificate issued, we find that the adjudicating authority has not recorded any findings. The claim of the appellant before the adjudicating authority was that these pipes are used for water supply project is to be considered while concluding the benefit of exemption on 470 520mm diameter pipes, in our view that contention me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
