TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal overturns duty demand, interest, penalties under Notification No. 6/2006-CE</h1> <h3>Samruddhi Industries & Others Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur</h3> Samruddhi Industries & Others Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur - 2012 (280) E.L.T. 537 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Appeal against Order-in-Original regarding Central Excise duty exemption for pipes used in water projects.Analysis:1. Facts of the Case: The main appellant supplied pipes for water supply projects in Nagpur under an exemption notification. The water was intended for both domestic and industrial use, with a majority for domestic consumption.2. Exemption Notifications: The department issued a Show Cause Notice demanding Central Excise duty, claiming the exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE was not applicable due to industrial water use. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and penalties, leading to the appeal.3. Appellant's Argument: The appellant argued that the pipes were mainly used for domestic water supply, with only a small portion for industrial use. They cited previous judgments where exemptions were granted despite mixed usage for export or power generation.4. Department's Submission: The department contended that the exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE was exclusive of industrial water supply, and the appellant could have claimed under a different notification for industrial use.5. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal analyzed the notifications and the usage of the supplied pipes. It noted that the exemption did not require exclusive human or animal consumption and found the appellant eligible for the exemption. The minor technical discrepancy in the certificate did not warrant denial of the substantive benefit.6. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the duty demand, interest, and penalties imposed by the Commissioner. The benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-CE was deemed applicable to the appellant based on the predominant domestic water supply usage, even with some industrial use.This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, legal interpretations, and the final decision of the Appellate Tribunal in the case concerning Central Excise duty exemption for pipes used in water projects.
TaxTMI 