2018 (6) TMI 978

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... claimed exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE Sr. No. 196A. The said entry provides full exemption to certain items used for setting up of water treatment plants intending to make water supply for human and animal consumption. The appellants obtained necessary certificate from Collector and District Magistrate in this regard issued to M/s Vishwa Construction Co., Secunderabad for the proposed water supply facility to Bhongir Municipality. The impugned order seeks to deny the benefit on the ground that the pipes are used for transportation of treated water from one storage point to another storage point, which is not covered under the ambit of the notification. Learned C.A. relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of IVRCL Infras....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... obtained by the respondents clearly showing that the impugned pipes were needed for delivery of water from the plant to the storage facilities. Secondly, we find that the Notification merely talks about the storage facilities and there is no restriction that the water should be delivered only to the first storage point, as has been provided in the amended notification with effect from 1-3-2007. It is obvious that the unamended notification would have to be interpreted to cover the impugned pipes which were needed to deliver water not only to the first storage point but also to the second and subsequent storage point, such as elevated storage reservoirs where the water was further treated for chlorination. If it was the intention of the gov....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r order passed under the Act by a Central Excise Officer lower in rank than the Commissioner can appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). Since in the instant case, the Superintendent is a Central Excise Officer lower in rank than the Commissioner and he had communicated the decision/order not to effect clearance availing exemption, the respondents in this case were, inter alia, aggrieved by his decision/order so communicated and in our view, the lower Appellate Authority was right in entertaining the appeal against such communication. 9. As regards the third ground taken by the Department that exemption Notification should have been strictly construed on the basis of the language used therein, and not on the basis of intendment by supplying....