Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2017 (9) TMI 695

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of PSC pipes liable to central excise duty. They have entered into agreement with certain contractors to execute work for TWAD Board and others with reference to clear water supply scheme projects. They claimed exemption under Notification No.6/2002 dated 1.3.2002 for such clearance. The Revenue entertained a view that the appellants are not liable for such exemption and proceeded against them. Another issue involved in the present appeals is that the appellants have collected certain amount towards excise duty and did not discharge the same in the Government account in time. Accordingly, in terms of section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, proceedings were initiated against them to recover the said amount. The case was adjudicated res....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of excise duty. In the absence of any representation by the appellant to the buyer that there is no excise duty being collected for the said sales, no amount can be recovered from them under section 11D. The ld. Counsel relied upon various case laws in support of his both contentions. 5. The ld. AR opposes the appeals. He submitted that there is no water treatment plant in many of the projects for which the PSC pipes were supplied by the appellant. The requirement for exemption is that the pipes should be used from source to plant and plant to the storage. In the absence of plant for treatment to make the water fit for human consumption, the exemption is not available to the impugned goods. 6. Regarding the demand under section 11AD, he s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....TIOL-918-CESTAT-MUM; M/s. Laxmi Pipes and Fittings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2017-TIOL-2160-CESTAT-DEL and in the appellant s own case vide Final Order No. 42123/2016 dated 1.11.2016. In view of the consistent finding of the Tribunal, on similar set of facts, we find denial of exemption is not tenable. Here we also note that the ld. counsel submitted that the treatment plant does not mean an elaborate establishment of machinery. There can be a situation where the water can be made fit for distribution for human consumption, by a simple process including at the place of source. It is his case that the plant cannot be so strictly interpreted to refer to only an elaborate process of treatment. 9. Regarding the demand under ....