Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd vs Cce, Coimbatore on 10 February, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI E/S/41942/2014 & E/41658/2014 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 06/2014 (C0mmr.) dated 31.03.2014, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore). M/s. Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. : Appellant Vs. CCE, Coimbatore : Respondent
Appearance Shri T. Chandran Nair, Adv., For the applicant Shri M. Rammohan Rao, AC (AR) For the respondent CORAM Honble Shri D.N, PANDA, Judicial Member Honble Shri R. PERIASAMI, Technical Member FINAL ORDER No. 40278 / 2015 Date of Hearing/Decision: 10.03.2015 Per: D.N. Panda The precise case of the appellant as argued is that the goods cleared were meant for the purpose of execution of Drinking Water Supply Project in terms of international competitive bidding (ICB). The goods meant for clearance were of the character and nature covered by the Customs Tariff entry 9801 as has been notified by Notification No. 6/06-Cus. dated 01.03.2006 and No. 12/11-CE dated 07.03.2012. The first notification covers the period December11 to February11 and the second notification covers the period March12 to September12. According to the mandate of the notifications goods covered by CTH 9801 imported to India, shall be exempted, if used in the drinking water supply project executed in terms of international competitive bidding. Similar such exemption was extended to the goods cleared under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Appellant supplied the goods in question for use in Drinking water supply project as notified by Govt. of India vide Customs Notification No. 42/96 dated 23.07.96 in terms of clause (6) of CTH 9801. It is a fact that the goods cleared were meant for use in Drinking water supply project as certified by the authorities concerned.
2. When the factual position is as above, Revenues allegation is that the goods supplied by appellants were not covered by CTH 9801. Ld. DR supports adjudication submitting that the goods supplied by appellant 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. Appellants 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 No. 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 has flown under clause (6) of CTH 9801. Reference to CTH 9801 finds place in notification No. 6/06-CE dated 01.03.06 as well as notification No. 12/11-CE dt. 07.03.12. Reading of the customs notification, tariff heading, nature of goods cleared and central excise notifications enables to hold that the goods cleared by appellant were meant for Drinking water supply project only. The goods so used was certified by the appropriate authority. Therefore in absence of any contrary evidence, the goods cleared by appellant cannot be denied exemption. Aforesaid factual finding and reasoning calls for allowing the appeal for which that is allowed.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(R. PERIASAMI) (D.N. PANDA)
TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
BB
1