Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax Central Excise Versus Bhoorathanam Construction Co. (P) Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (3) TMI 1055 – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT – 2018 (361) E.L.T. 37 (Raj.)
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 13-3-2018
D. B. Central\/excise Appeal No. 22\/2018
Central Excise
K. S. Jhaveri And Vijay Kumar Vyas, JJ.
\nFor the Appellant : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Mr. Saurabh Harsh
\nJUDGMENT
\n1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
\n2. Counsel for the appellant has framed following substantial question of law arising in the appeal:
\n (i) Whether the ld. CESTAT was right in law in setting aside the demand determined on the basis of non-fulfillment of the conditions of exemption Notification No.47\/2002-CE dated 06.09.2002 & Notification No.6\/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 for the clearance of finished goods i.e. MS Specials to the water suppl<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ification of water or for = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n it = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n lants. This is not an empty formality. It is the foundation for availing the benefits under the Notification. It cannot be said that they are mere procedural requirements, with no consequences attached for non-observance. The consequences are denial of benefits under the Notification. For availing benefits under an exemption Notification, the conditions have to be strictly complied with. Therefore, CEGAT endorsed the view that the exemption from operation of Rule 174, was not available to the appellants. On the facts found, the view is on terra firma. We find no merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ion. In this case the adjudicating authority has observed that the appellants have cleared MS Specials without payment of duty and no certificate to the effect that such goods were cleared for the intended use as specified in the Notification have been submitted. Under the impugned order the adjudicating authority has observed as under: = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n dia, Accounts Officer, authorized by the director of the company is also co-related in this respect who tendered the statement that they were simultaneously clearing PSCC Pipes, BWSC Pipes, MS Pipes and MS Specials under various certificates issued by the Collector under exemption Notification No.47\/2002-CE dated 06.09.2002 and 06\/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 substantiating the allegation of willful mis-statement of the facts as raised by the impugned show cause notice. I also further observe that unit of quantity of clearance of various pipes are mentioned in running meters\/kms. In the certificates whereas the assessee had shown the clearance of MS Specials in numbers\/kgs in the ER-1 returns submitted to the department but however no information has been specified regarding Collector's Certificate. I, therefore conclude that the assessee have wrongly availed the exemption under Notification No.47\/2002-CE dated 06.09.2002 and 06\/2002-CE dated 01.03.2006 for the clearance of MS Specials whi<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n nd site condition and MS Specials are used for changing the alignment using for Tee, Bends and are short in length used for lying and jointing of Pipes in required alignment. Further, the Pipes are cleared in running length whereas the MS Specials were cleared in Nos. and Kgs which clearly indicated that both the products are different and their uses are also different and known in the market with different names and characteristics. In the obsence of any certificate issued by the relevant authority regarding use of particular product for intended purpose the benefit of said conditional exemption has rightly been denied by the adjudicating authority. Moreover, the appellant during the course of personal hearing stated that the necessary certificate shall be produced within one month time but they could not produce the same even after more than four months. In the above circumstances I am unable to accept the contention of the appellants. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax Central Excise Versus Bhoorathanam Construction Co. (P) Ltd.Central Excise2018 (3) TMI 1055 – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT – 2018 (361) E.L.T. 37 (Raj.)RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 13-3-2018D. B. Central\/excise Appeal No. 22\/2018 Central ExciseK. S. Jhaveri And Vijay Kumar Vyas, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Siddharth Ranka … Continue reading “Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax Central Excise Versus Bhoorathanam Construction Co. (P) Ltd.”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11047","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11047","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11047"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11047\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11047"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11047"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11047"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\ncarrying out any similar
\nprocess or processes
\nintended to make the water
\nfit for human or animal
\nconsumption, but does not
\ninclude a plant supplying
\nwater for industrial
\n purposes.
\n Nil
\n 4
\n
\n “3.3.1. That for ready reference Condition No.4 of Notification No.6\/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 is extracted hereunder under:
\n 4. If, a certificate issued by the Collector\/District Magistrate\/ Deputy Commissioner of the District in which the plant is located, is produced to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction, to the effect that such goods are cleared for the intended use specified in column (3) of the Table.
\n 3.3.2. That for ready reference Condition No. 47A of Notification No.47\/2002-CE dated 06.09.2002 is extracted hereunder under:-
\n 47A. If, a certificate issued by the Collector\/District Magistrate\/Deputy Commissioner of the District in which the plant is l<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n Rate of duty
\n 1
\n 2
\n 3
\n 4
\n 7307
\n Tube or Pipe
\n Fitting (For Example, Couplings, Elbows, Sleeves), Of Iron or Steel
\n Cast Fittings:
\n
\n
\n 7307 11
\n Of non-malleable cast iron:
\n
\n
\n 7307 11 10
\n Sponge iron cast fittings
\nKg.
\n12.5%
\n 7307 11 20
\n SG iron cast fittings
\nKg.
\n12.5%
\n 7307 11 90
\n Other
\nKg.
\n12.5%
\n 7307 19 00
\n Other
\nKg.
\n12.5%
\n
\n6. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Eagle Flask Industries Limited vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune (02.09.2004 – SC) : MANU\/SC\/0729\/2004 .. 171 ELT 296 wherein it has been held as under:-
\n 6. We find that Notification 11\/88 deals with exemption from operation of Rule 174 to exempted goods.<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7. He has also taken us through the observations made by the CIT (A) which reads as under:
\n 4. During the course of personal dearing, Shri Arvind Sharma, Advocate appeared and reiterated the submission made in the appeal documents. He asked for one month time to get the necessary certificates from the State Government, PHED Department regarding MS Specials and weight vis<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n “I, on perusal of the certificates submitted by the assessee find that the MS Specials cleared by the assessee alongwith other pipes viz. PSCC Pipes, MS Pipes & BWSC Pipes in the guise of exemption Notification No. 06\/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and Notification No.47\/2002-CE dated 06.09.2002 to PHED, Govt. of Rajasthan did not find mention of supplies of MS Specials in relevant certificates whereas the other Pipes have their clear mention in the certificates. However, I observe from the facts of the case that the assessee had cleared MS Specials to PHED, Govt. of Rajasthan on the basis of the certificates in the name and style of other pipes and thereby<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n8. We have heard the counsel for the appellant.<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n