9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents herein supplied pipes to various projects processing and supplying water to various bleaching and dyeing units. Such pipes are exempted from payment of Excise Duty vide notification No. 03/2004-CE, dated 08.01.2004, subject to the condition that a certificate is to be issued by the District Collector regarding the use of the pipes in the project. In the instant case, the District Collector Coimbatore had issued the required certificates and appellant claimed the benefit of exemption notification. However, the department was of the opinion that the appellant's supplies were not covered by the exemption notification and at the instance of the Department, the District Collector cancel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 17.11.2011 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner sanctioning an amount of Rs. 1,02,13,018/- and rejecting an amount of Rs. 57,03,614/- and further ordering recovery of Rs. 68,72,164/- towards manufacturer's liability under Rule 6 of CCR 2004. Upon appeal, the first appellate authority vide Order-in-Appeal No. 05/2012, dated 13.02.2012, set aside the order-in-original of the lower authority and allowed the appeal of the assessee, thereby sanctioning refund as per revised claim of Rs. 1,59,24,128/- to the respondent assessee. The second appeal by the Revenue No. E/1173/2012 is against this Order-in-Appeal No. 05/2012, dated 13.02.2012. 3. It emerges from the records and submissions made by both the parties that in the first appeal No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submit that the notification nowhere requires that any new certificate which is issued must be only in lieu of the earlier certificate. Further, the earlier certificates have already been cancelled by the District Collector at the instance of the Central Excise and are therefore non est. They are not relying on the first set of certificates any longer. They are relying on the second set of certificates according to which they are legitimately entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 03/2004-CE, dated 08.01.2004 and this was correctly granted by the first appellate authority. He would further submit that even the second set of certificates did not cover their full quantity of pipes used and some quantity was not covered and exemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the units is not covered by the Notification No. 03/2004-CE, dated 08.01.2004. He also held that the appellant is not the manufacturer of the pipes but they had procured it from the manufacturer. If the appellant's pipes become exempted, the manufacturer could not have availed CENVAT Credit under CCR 2004 or should have reversed the amount under Rule 6 of CCR 2004 and sought to recover the same from the respondent assessee. Both these contentions were rejected by the first appellate authority. Revenue supports the contentions of the original authority. 7. After examining the matter and the notification No. 03/2004-CE, dated 08.01.2004, we find that notification exempted pipes needed for delivery of water from its source to the plant and f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
