TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 755
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Plot No.35, Peenya II Stage, opposite Karnataka Castings, NTTF Circle, Bangalore, which is 6 kilometer away from the project site. In the said premises, they manufacture reinforced concrete girders exclusively for the said projects and cleared the same to the project sites. Alleging that the said premises for manufacture of reinforced concrete girders has not been made available by M/s. BMRCL to the appellant and being 6 km away from the project site, the appellants are not eligible to the benefit of the Notification No.05/2006-CE (Sl. No.10) dated 01.03.2006 as amended by Notification No.15/2009-CE dated 07.07.2009 and Notification No.12/2012-CE (Sl. No.186) dated 17.03.2012. The first show-cause notice was issued to them on 05.05.2011 for the period August 2009 to May 2011 invoking extended period of limitation. Whereas, subsequently three show-cause notices were issued for the period from June 2011 to November 2012 demanding total duty of Rs.7,06,34,936/-. On adjudication, demands were confirmed with interest and penalty. Hence, the present appeals. 3. At the outset, the learned advocate has submitted that the appellant was awarded a lump sum contract dated 05.06.2009 for a t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the space allotted to the appellant by BMRCL is evidently a part of the contract between BMRCL and the appellant, hence, they are eligible to the benefit of the exemption Notification No.05/2006-CE (Sl. No.10) dated 01.03.2006 as amended by Notification No.15/2009-CE dated 07.07.2009 and Notification No.12/2012-CE (Sl. No.186) dated 17.03.2012. He submits that the definition of 'Site' has been elaborated under Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 which provides the definition of 'Site' means any premises made available for manufacture of goods and such goods are exclusively used for construction work, which in the present case, has been satisfied by the appellant. The Circular subsequently issued bearing No.1036/24/2016-CX.1 dated 06.07.2016. It was clarified that while examining the eligibility of the benefit of Notification, the field formations are insisting on extraneous criteria of distance, which is not criteria for reading the said Notification. 3.1 Further, he has submitted that the present issue is squarely covered by various judgment of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Simplex Concrete Piles (I) Ltd. vs. CCE: 2004 (172) ELT 369 (Tri.-Mum.); MRG Buildcon Pvt. Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tral Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and not eligible to the benefit of the exemption Notification No.59/90-CE dated 20.03.1990 substantially lays down similar conditions that were prescribed in Notification No.05/2006-CE (Sl. No.10) dated 01.03.2006 as amended by Notification No.15/2009-CE dated 07.07.2009 and Notification No.12/2012-CE (Sl. No.186) dated 17.03.2012. The words mentioned in the Notification are quite clear and unambiguous, therefore, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co.: 2018 (361) ELT 577 (SC) and also in the case of CCE, Patna vs. Shapoorji Pallonji: 2023 (279) GSTL 145 (SC), in view of this the appellants are not eligible to the benefit of the said Notification. Further, he has submitted that during the period of dispute, the issue was decided in favour of the Revenue by various appellate forums and even in their own case. Hence, inspite of the said legal position, the appellants chose not to register themselves nor did they pay duty as required under law; hence, invocation of extended period of limitation is justified. In support, he referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Usha Rectifie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Clause 1.2.6 and 1.2.6.1 reads as follows: "1.2.6 Casting Yard and Construction Depot 1.2.6.1 BMRCL shall not make land available either for the Casting Yard or for Construction depot or for site office for Engineer / Contractor. The Contractor shall indicate arrangements made for locating casting yard / Construction Depot / site office while submitting the tender. The contractor shall also indicate probable location for GC Office which should be located within the jurisdiction of the work covered in the present tender. Contractor has to make his own arrangements for land. However, assistance can be provided by BMRCL by giving recommendatory letters, etc., to the concerned authorities." 8. In para 19.1, which reads as under: 19. Sub-Clause 11.1 The Contract Price 19.1 Taxes and Dues ................. All the Segmental Construction in Casting Yard are to be treated as part of the Construction work covered in the tender. These segments/elements are cast at nominated places decided by BMRCL for placement at work sport, due to the space constraints and traffic replications at site work, hence, these segmental construction at nominated places are a part and parcel of wor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....truction work only. In the present case that the goods manufactured by the appellant are solely used in the construction work of Veraval Port is not in doubt. It is also not in doubt that the GMB have approved the site in which the fabrication work was undertaken and also helped the appellant in procuring that site The fact that the goods would be manufactured at a particular site approved by GMB shows that both the principals and the agent in this case are aware of the details of the site. In such circumstances to say that the GMB has not made the premises available to the manufacturer of goods is farfetched. 5. We also observe that even before the Board has clarified the exact purport of the word 'site' the Tribunal as held that site of construction of goods falling under Chapter Heading 67.07 need not be necessarily at the place of construction. In the case of V.M. Jog v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai 1200354 ELT 172 (Tri - Mumbai)] the Tribunal held that the fact that site of construction is half a kilometre away from the flyover does not disentitle the appellant before them from seeking the benefit of Notification No. 5/98, in the case of Delhi Tourism & Tra....