Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs H.E.G. Ltd on 1 October, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. II
Excise Appeal No. 2726 of 2006
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 54/RPR-II/ 2006 dated 15.6.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals I), Raipur (CG)]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Commissioner of Central Excise Appellants
Raipur
Vs.
H.E.G. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Shri S. Nunthuk, Jt.CDR for the Appellants
Ms. Surabhi Sinha, Advocate for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. B Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing /decision: 01.10.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 53106 /2015-EX(DB)
Per Ashok Jindal :
Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 41/94-CE dated 1.3.1994.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturer of sponge iron. A show cause notice was issued to demand duty on pipe rack supporting structure manufactured and used by them in their captive power plant on the premise that these pipes rack supporting structures and roof trusses were not goods of general nature but had specific use, therefore, is classifiable under CETH 84/85 of Central Excise Act, 1985. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled for benefit of exemption notification No. 41/94-CE dated 1.3.1994. A show cause notice was adjudicated and benefit of notification was denied. Consequently, duty was demanded along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty was imposed. The said order was challenged before learned Commissioner (Appeals) who examined the issue and allowed the benefit of exemption notification by setting aside the adjudication order. Aggrieved from the said order, Revenue is before us.
3. Learned AR submits that respondent is not entitled for benefit of notification No. 41/1994 as the goods manufactured at site for use in construction and as such are exempted from payment of duty under notification No. 41/94 ibid. But they have not submitted any evidence in support of their claim that the goods in question were fabricated at site and used at site for construction.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that for the earlier period on the same issue, this Tribunal has already held that the respondent is entitled to benefit of notification No. 41/94 CE dated 1.3.1994 vide Order No. A/50447/2015 Ex(DB) dated 19.2.2015. Therefore impugned order is to be upheld.
5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.
6. On going through the impugned order, we find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issue of eligibility of exemption under Notification No. 41/1994 CE dated 1.3.1994 on the basis of evidence adduced by the respondent whereas in the grounds of appeal Revenue stated that respondent has not adduced any evidence. There is a fact on record that these pipe rack supporting structures are manufactured by the respondent at site for captive use in their own captive power plant. As per the notification No. 41/1994, the goods which have been fabricated at site for construction and to be used for such construction work at site is entitled for the benefit of said notification. The facts are admitted that the pipe rack supporting structure and roof trusses are fabricated in the factory (at site) where they were required to be used for construction. Therefore, relying on the earlier decision in the respondents own case for the earlier period, we hold that respondents are entitled for benefit of notification No..41/1994 ibid. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, Same is upheld. Appeal filed by the respondent is dismissed.
(dictated and pronounced in the open court )
( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)
( B Ravichandran )
Member(Technical)
ss
2