2023 (9) TMI 284

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of ductile iron pipes and pipe-fittings. 2.1 During the month of September, 2005, the appellant cleared 573.5 metres ductile iron pipes of 800 mm dia K9 from its Khardah Unit to M/s Trichy Construction Company Private Limited. During the relevant period, there existed two exemption Notifications, viz. Notificaion No.6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 as amended by Notification No.47/2002-CE dated 06.09.2002 and Notification No.3/2004-CE dated 08.01.2004 for water treatment and supply projects. While the former was for supply of drinking water for human and animal consumption, the later was for supply of water for agricultural and industrial purpose. 2.2 The buyer i.e. M/s Trichy Construction C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The show-cause notice was adjudicated. The demand of duty was confirmed against the appellant. 2.5 Against the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. It is the contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellant that once the requisite certificate for claiming the exemption has been issued by the competent authority, it is not open to the Central Excise Authority to deny the benefit of over-ruling the certificate as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zuari Industries Limited Vs. CCE reported in 2007 (210) ELT 648 (SC) and also held by this Tribunal in the case of Indian Hume Pipe Company Limited Vs. CCE reported in 2017 (9) TMI 695-CESTAT-Chennai, which has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of the appeal f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. That has also certified that there were certain materials required for execution of the Head Works and Pipe Lines from Coleroon River to various storage tanks and group sumps in the project. The Collector also indicated that the certificate was issued as a requirement of the Notification No. 47/2002-C.E., dated 6-9-2002. In absence of any proforma prescribed by the Notification, the certificate issued by the Collector was basis for the appellant to claim duty exemption. But it is very strange to note that when the Executive Engineer guided Revenue that the supply was not for the purpose of water treatment plant, further enquiry was not conducted by Revenue to ascertain the facts from the Collector. In absence of any enquiry, certificate ....