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>Broad Interpretation of 'Site' Expands Tax Exemption for Construction Materials Under Chapter 68.07 CETA Provisions</h1> <h3>SIMPLEX CONCRETE PILES (INDIA) LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS. & C. EX., RAJKOT</h3> SIMPLEX CONCRETE PILES (INDIA) LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS. & C. EX., RAJKOT - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 369 (Tri. - Mumbai) 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal were:Whether the tetrapodes fabricated by the appellant-company qualify for exemption from payment of duty under Notification Nos. 5/98-C.E., 5/99-C.E., and 6/2000-C.E., which exempt goods falling under Chapter Heading 68.07 of the Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA) when manufactured at the site of construction.Whether the term 'site' as used in the notifications includes premises not physically located at the exact place of construction but approved or facilitated by the principal (Gujarat Maritime Board) for the fabrication of goods used in the construction.Whether the appellant's fabrication of tetrapodes at a hired private plot approximately 1.5 kilometers away from the break water construction site falls within the ambit of 'manufactured at site' for the purpose of exemption.The applicability and interpretation of Board's Circular No. 456/22/99/CX dated 18-5-1999 clarifying the meaning of 'site' in the context of these notifications.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Applicability of exemption under Notifications for goods manufactured at siteRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Notifications 5/98-C.E., 5/99-C.E., and 6/2000-C.E. exempt goods falling under Chapter Heading 68.07 of CETA from excise duty when such goods are manufactured at the site of construction for use therein. The Board's Circular No. 456/22/99/CX provides a clarification that the term 'site' includes any premises made available to the fabricator by specific mention in the contract, subject to the goods being used solely for the construction work.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the tetrapodes clearly fall under the relevant tariff heading and are used exclusively in the construction of break waters at Veraval Port. The primary dispute was whether the fabrication site qualifies as 'site' under the notifications.Key evidence and findings: The appellant fabricated the tetrapodes at a hired private plot about 1.5 kilometers from the break water site. Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB), the principal, assisted the appellant in procuring this site, although it was not formally allotted to the appellant under the contract.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal relied on the Board's circular which explicitly broadens the meaning of 'site' beyond the physical place of construction to include any premises made available by the principal through the contract. Since the GMB approved and facilitated the site for fabrication, the Tribunal held that the site was effectively made available to the appellant for this purpose.Treatment of competing arguments: The Commissioner contended that since the site was hired by the appellant and not explicitly allotted by the principal, it did not qualify as 'site' under the notifications. The Tribunal rejected this narrow interpretation, emphasizing the Board's clarification and the practical realities of construction projects.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's fabrication site qualifies as 'site' under the notifications, entitling them to exemption from excise duty.Issue 2: Interpretation of the term 'site' in the context of construction and exemption notificationsRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal referred to earlier decisions including V.M. Jog v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Delhi Tourism & Transportation Devp. Corpn. v. CCE, where it was held that the manufacturing site need not be the exact physical location of construction but may be a nearby or approved location used exclusively for fabrication of goods for the construction project.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the term 'site' should not be given a restrictive meaning and that the Board's circular was issued to resolve disputes arising from narrow interpretations. The Tribunal agreed with the principle that the exemption's intent is to support construction-related manufacturing even if it occurs at proximate or approved premises rather than the immediate construction location.Key evidence and findings: The appellant's site was 1.5 kilometers from the break water, and GMB's involvement in procuring the site demonstrated awareness and approval. The goods fabricated were solely for the construction under contract.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the precedent and circular to hold that the appellant's site falls within the intended meaning of 'site' for exemption purposes.Treatment of competing arguments: The Commissioner's argument that the site was not allotted but only procured with GMB's help was found insufficient to deny the benefit, as the principal's approval and facilitation effectively made the site available.Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the 'site' includes the hired premises approved by the principal, and the appellant's manufacturing activity qualifies for exemption.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order denying exemption and allowed the appeal. The crucial legal reasoning includes:'The expression 'site' may not be given a restrictive meaning and shall include any premises made available to the manufacture of goods falling under Heading No. 68.07 ... by way of a specific mention in the contract for such construction work provided that the goods manufactured at site premises are solely used in the said construction work only.''The fact that the GMB have approved the site in which the fabrication work was undertaken and also helped the appellant in procuring that site ... shows that both the principals and the agent in this case are aware of the details of the site.''To say that the GMB has not made the premises available to the manufacturer of goods is farfetched.''The goods fabricated by the appellant fall under the tariff heading mentioned in the notification and the entire goods produced at this site were used in the construction of break waters as stipulated in the contract.'Core principles established include:The term 'site' for exemption under relevant notifications includes premises approved or facilitated by the principal, even if not physically contiguous with the construction site.Strict construction of notifications should not defeat the substantive benefit intended for goods manufactured for construction at proximate or approved sites.Approval and facilitation by the principal in procuring fabrication premises suffice to treat such premises as 'site' under the notifications.Final determinations:The appellant's fabrication of tetrapodes at a hired site about 1.5 kilometers from the break water construction site, with GMB's approval and assistance, qualifies as manufacturing 'at site' under the exemption notifications.The appellant is entitled to exemption from payment of excise duty on the tetrapodes fabricated at the said site for use in the construction of break waters at Veraval Port.
TaxTMI 