2017 (11) TMI 1322

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....02.  The Revenue entertained a view that the appellants are not eligible for the said concession as the condition for the exemption is not fulfilled.  In other words, in the project for which the pipes are supplied there is no water treatment plant.  As such, the exemption is not applicable.  The second issue in the present proceedings is with reference to the liability of the appellants to deposit the amount collected in the name of excise duty in terms of Section 11 D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.  The Revenue held that since the contracted amount is inclusive of excise duty, when the appellant enjoyed exemption from excise duty, the amount collected should be construed as inclusive of excise duty and the said ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2017-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 proc....