2016 (10) TMI 907

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation No. 6/2002 CE dated 01.03.2002 as amended by Notfn No. 47/2002-CE dated 06.09.2002, on their belief that goods used for delivery of water from source to treatment plant and further to storage facility, are eligible for exemption. The department took a view that in the assessee's contract there is no element of 'water treatment plant' hence they are not eligible for exemption. Accordingly a speaking order was passed against the assessee denying them the exemption and ordering appropriation of the Bank Guarantee in this regard. 2. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order 03.08.2007 allowed the benefit of exemption Notfn. 47/2002-CE dated 06.09.2002, however remanded the matter to t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the issue stands covered by decision of Tribunal in the case of CCE, C & ST, Hyderabad vs IVRCL [2009 (240) ELT 606 (Tri- Bang)] which has held as under: 5. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The point at issue in these appeals is whether the benefit of the notification should be restricted for pipes up to the first storage point only. A similar issue came before CESTAT, Kolkata in the case of CCE, Kolkata-III v. M/s. Electro Steel Castings Ltd. The Tribunal in the Order No. M-301-330/A-1119-1150/KOL/2008 [2009 (235) E.L.T. 757 (Tri.-Kolkata)] has held that the said exemption notification would be applicable to the pipes required even beyond the first storage point. The reasoning given by the Tribunal is repr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... utilities and the concerned District Collectors have also given them the necessary certificates in respect of the exemption Notification as it was in its unamended form. Even after storage point. In other words, the amended notification also allows exemption to pipes which are used beyond the first storage point, but in respect of only higher dimension. As regards the ground of the Department that the communication issued by the Jurisdictional Superintendent should not be treated as an appellable order, we are unable to agree with the same. By issuing the said letters the Superintendent sought to deny exemption to the respondents by putting a restriction on the clearance of the pipes for the public utilities concerned. In fact, the Superin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the exemption being extended to pipes used for delivering water up to subsequent storage points which are part of the water treatment project. 10. In view of our findings as above, we hold that the impugned order passed by the lower Appellate Authority extending exemption to the respondents does not require any interference. Hence, we dismiss all the 30 appeals filed by the Department in addition to two extra appeals filed by the Department. 6. We find that the issue before the Kolkata Bench was identical with the one before us. We are in agreement with the said decision. In our view, the exemption cannot be restricted to the first storage point. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly relied on the decision of the Kolk....