2016 (11) TMI 10

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Amresh Jain, DR for the appellant/Department Ms. Shreya Dahiya, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Per B. Ravichandran Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 15.12.2009 of Commissioner (Appeals-I), Indore. 2. The short issue involved in the present appeal is the eligibility of the respondent for exemption under notification no.6/06-CE in respect of AC couplings cleared along w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 5. The Revenue contended that the Board s clarification vide F.No.167/38/2007 CX 4 dated 15.06.2009 clearly brings out the scope of the exemption available to pipes. Such exemption cannot be extended to the pipe fittings. 6. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent relied on the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....both pipes and fittings/couplings there is no separate classification of pipe fitting, as stated in the circular for asbestos cement pipes. The circular is not applicable in the case of appellant. Its applicability is limited to those pipes, in respect of which the findings are classified in a separate heading. In terms of above clarification also the case of appellant is squarely covered by the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant for the purpose of the exemption was producing certificates to the department from the prescribed authority and all the facts were in the knowledge of the department therefore there is no suppression." 8. We find that in the present appeal the Revenue has simply relied on the Board s clarification mentioned above and reiterated that only the pipes and nothing else will be allowed exe....