Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chennai vs M/S. Blue Bay Mineral Water Co on 27 October, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/1044/2010 & E/CO/67/2004
(Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 1005/2003 (M-II) dated 09.09.03 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai).
For approval and signature
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
_________________________________________________________
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 the Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? ____________________________________________________________
CCE, Chennai : Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Blue Bay Mineral Water Co. : Respondent
Appearance Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR, for the appellants Shri M. Karthikeyan, Adv., for the respondents CORAM Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of hearing : 27.10.2010 Date of decision : 27.10.2010 ORDER No._____________ Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. The issue in this case relates to the claim of small scale exemption by the respondents on the ground that their factory is located in a rural area. The original authority had denied the exemption to the respondents. However, the lower appellate authority on an appeal from the respondents has allowed the exemption leading to this appeal by the department. We find that the lower appellate authority has held that once the district authorities have classified the impugned village Athur, where the factory of the respondents is located, as a rural area, the same cannot be ignored. He also note that the original authority should have proved that Athur village is covered under the urban area which has not been done and therefore, he has allowed the exemption.
2. We find that the impugned small scale exemption Notification No. 8/2000-CE dated 01.03.2000 defines rural area as the area comprised in a village as defined in the land revenue records but excludes area under any Municipal Committee, Municipal Corporation, Town Area Committee, Cantonment Board, Notified area Committee and any area that may be notified as an urban area by the Central Government or State Government. The original authority has referred to the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Act, 1996 which defines urban area but the original authority has not shown as to which category of urban area under the said Act covers the impugned Athur village. He has referred to the Notification regarding a master plan for Chennai Metropolitan area but the respondents contend that this master plan is for the future and nowhere is it stated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Act, 1996 that the term urban area is synonymous with Chennai Metropolitan area. What is included in the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Act is the city of Madras, the Madras city belt area and area within 16 kms of the outer limits of a municipal town. No evidence has been produced before us to prove that the impugned village Athur is a part of the urban area as defined in the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Act.
3. On the contrary, a reference was made pursuant to direction of the Bench given during the last hearing to the district authorities and it has been clarified by the District Collectors Office that the jurisdictional Tahsildar is the competent authority to issue certificate regarding classification of villages. The jurisdictional Tahsildar of Ponneri Taluk has clarified that the impugned Athur village is situated in rural area. In view of such a specific clarification obtained from the jurisdictional revenue authority, we find no substance in the departments appeal against the order passed by the lower appellate authority. Hence, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the departments appeal.
4. The cross-objection filed by the respondents is in the nature of comments upon /reply to the departments appeal and the same is dismissed.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
BB
4