TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enied on this ground - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant - Appeal No. E/464,469,470/2011 - A/85675-85677/2019 - Dated:- 5-4-2019 - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For Assessee: Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Adv., Shri Shdhinder, Adv. For Revenue: Shri R.K. Dwivedi, ADC (AR) ORDER Per: D.M. Misra Heard both sides. These appeals are filed against OIO No.13/COMMR(KAP)/LTU-M/2010, dt.20.12.2010, passed by CCE, LTU, Mumbai. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. pipes falling under Chapter 73 of Central Excise Tariff Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enied to them relates to the pipes were used beyond the first storage facility. The learned Advocate submits that the issue is no more res integra and is covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of CCE Calcutta Vs Electro Steel Castings Ltd 2009 (235) ELT 757 (Tri-Cal.), which was upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported at 2009 (244) ELT A18 (SC). The ratio laid down in the said judgment has been consistently followed by the Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs IVRCL Infrastructure Projects Ltd 2009-TIOL-167-CESTAT-BANG, CC Vs Toyo Engg. India Ltd 2006 (201) ELT 513 (SC), CESTAT s Misc. Order No.243/2012- EX, dt.06.03.2012 (M/s Indian Hume Pipe Co Ltd Vs CCE), M/s Supreme Industries Ltd Vs CCE (LTU) 2018 (8) TMI 83 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant 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 storage facilities. Secondly, we find that the Notification merely talks about the storage facilities and there is no restriction that the water should be delivered only to the first storage point, as has been provided in the amended Notification with effect from 1-3-07. It is obvious that the un-amended Notification would have to be interpreted to cover the impugned pipes which were needed to deliver water not only to the first storage point but also to the second and subsequent storage point, such as elevated storage reservoirs where the water was furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dents 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 or Order passed under the Act by a Central Excise Officer lower in rank than the Commissioner can appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). Since in the instant case, the Superintendent is a Central Excise Officer lower in rank than the Commissioner and he had communicated the decision/order not to effect clearance availing exemption, the Respondents in this case were, inter alia, aggrieved by his decision/order so communicated and in our view, the lower Appellate Authority was right in entertaining the Appeal against such communication. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
