2024 (8) TMI 312

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ut payment of duty during the period from December 2011 to September 2012. to M/s.Hogenkkal Water Supply & Fluorosis Mitigation Project under Notification No.6/2006-CE dt. 01.03.2006 upto 16.03.2012 and under Notification No.12/92-CE dt. 17.03.2012. It appeared that the above supply of final products viz. HDPE pipes are classifiable under Chapter heading 3917 and is not eligible for excise duty exemption when supplied to the above project and appropriate duty was not discharged by the appellant at the time of clearance of those goods from the factory. They were issued a show cause notice for the period December 2011 to September 2012 demanding excise duty along with interest and for imposing penalty. As the assessee continued to do the clea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....upreme Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal wherein the appellant was held to be eligible for exemption would be applicable. The Ld. Counsel prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 4. Ld. A.R Shri N. Sathyanarayanan appearing for the Department supported the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides. 6. After hearing the submissions of both sides and also on perusal of records, we find that the earlier show cause notice issued to the appellant with the detailed facts alleging that the appellant is not eligible for exemption as per Notification No.6/2012-CE or 12/2012-CE has been decided by the Tribunal holding that the appellant is eligible for the benefit of exemption. The said decision passed by the Tribunal as reporte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant is altogether different and not meant for drinking water supply project to execute it. 3. Heard both sides. 4. In view of the aforesaid fundamental dispute in this appeal dispensing pre-deposit stay application is disposed and appeal itself is taken up for decision today. Appellant's contention that the goods were meant for drinking water supply project is not doubted when page No.120 of the appeal folder is read. Similarly, page Nos.126 & 134 also satisfies this proposition. Therefore, goods cleared were used in drinking water supply project, which is a notified project under the aforesaid notification. The notification had flown under clause (6) of CTH 9801. Reference to CTH 9801 finds place in Notification No.6/2006-CE, dated 1-3....