2016 (10) TMI 384 - AT - Central Excise

Plastic film/sheets not exempt for water plant setup. Specific categories key for exemption claims.

The Tribunal held that the Plastic Polythene Film/Sheets supplied did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 3/2004-CEX dated 8.1.2004 for ... Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 3/2004-CEX - items of machinery and components required for setting up of water supply plants - pipes needed for delivery of water - collector's certificate for intended use - exclusion of non-machinery items from exemptionEligibility for exemption under Notification No. 3/2004-CEX - items of machinery and components required for setting up of water supply plants - collector's certificate for intended use - exclusion of non-machinery items from exemption - Entitlement of HDPE Geomembranc Film 1.00 MM Thick to exemption under Notification No. 3/2004-CEX dated 8.1.2004 and the evidentiary value of the District Collector's certificate. - HELD THAT: - The Notification grants exemption to all items of machinery, including instruments, apparatus and appliances, auxiliary equipment and their components/parts required for setting up of water supply plants, and to pipes needed for delivery of water, subject to a certificate from the District Collector/D.C./D.M. that the goods were cleared for the intended use specified in the Notification. The subject goods, described as 'HDPE Geomembranc Film 1.00 MM Thick,' do not fall within the categories expressly covered by the Notification - they are neither machinery nor components/parts of such machinery nor pipes for delivery of water. Consequently, a certificate by the District Collector cannot extend the scope of the Notification to cover an item which is not within its express ambit. The Tribunal therefore affirmed the view of the lower authorities that the item is not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 3/2004-CEX and rejected the appellant's reliance on the Collector's certificate and the authorities cited on behalf of the appellant. [Paras 6]The HDPE Geomembranc Film 1.00 MM Thick is not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 3/2004-CEX and the appeal is dismissed.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the HDPE Geomembranc Film 1.00 MM Thick is not within the exemption granted by Notification No. 3/2004-CEX and that the District Collector's certificate does not change that position. Issues: Eligibility of benefit of exemption under Notification No. 3/2004-CEX dated 8.1.2004.Analysis:The case involved the eligibility of benefit under Notification No. 3/2004-CEX dated 8.1.2004 concerning the supply of Plastic Polythene Film/Sheets for setting up a water supply plant. The appellant argued that they were entitled to the exemption as a certificate from the District Collector supported the intended use of the supplied item. On the other hand, the Revenue, represented by the ld. AR, maintained the findings of the lower Revenue authorities. The Tribunal carefully examined the facts, submissions, and relevant case laws presented by both sides.Upon reviewing the contents of Notification No. 3/2004-CEX dated 8.1.2004, the Tribunal noted that the exemption applied to 'all items of machinery, instruments, apparatus, appliances, auxiliary equipment, components/parts required for setting up water supply plants,' and 'pipes for water delivery.' However, the Tribunal found that the Plastic Polythene Film/Sheets supplied by the appellant did not fall under any of the mentioned categories in the notification. Therefore, the certificate issued by the District Collector could not support the appellant's claim for exemption. The Tribunal concluded that since the supplied item was not covered by the notification, the appeal lacked merit. The case laws cited by the appellant were also deemed irrelevant. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.The judgment was pronounced on 31.8.2016 by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, comprising Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President, and Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical). Ms. Rinky Arora appeared as the advocate for the appellant, while Shri G.R. Singh represented the respondent. The Tribunal's decision clarified the scope of the exemption notification and emphasized the necessity for the supplied items to align with the specific categories listed in the notification to claim the benefit of exemption.