C.C.E. Raipur, Chhattisgarh vs M/S Heg Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 48/RPR-II/2005 dated 12.08.2005 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Raipur].

For approval and signature:

Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

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?

C.C.E. Raipur, Chhattisgarh .Appellants

Vs.

M/s HEG Ltd. .Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Ranjan Khanna, DR for the Appellants

Ms. Surabhi Sinha, Advocate for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 19.02.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 50447/2015-EX(DB)

Per Ashok Jindal:

Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order on the grounds that respondents are not entitled for the benefit under Notification No. 41/94 in respect of pipe racks supporting structure, roof trusses, iron and steel.

2. The facts of the case are that respondent is the manufacturer of sponge iron and claim exemption under notification no. 41/94 dated 01.03.1994 in respect of pipe racks supporting structure, roof trusses on the ground that these goods have been fabricated at site of construction to be used for such construction work at site. The adjudicating authority denied the benefit on the ground that respondent had failed to produce the evidence that goods have been fabricated at site of construction to be used for such construction work. Against that order an appeal was filed before the Ld. Commissioner (A) who granted that benefit of notification no. 67/95 by treating the impugned goods as part of the capital goods. The said order was challenged before this Tribunal and Tribunal did not agree with the observation of the Ld. Commissioner (A). Therefore, remanded matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to consider whether the respondent is entitled for benefit of notification no. 41/94 or not. In remand proceedings Ld. Commissioner (A) allowed the benefit under notification no. 41/94. Aggrieved from the said order revenue is before us.

3. The Ld. AR submits that in this case the goods have been fabricated at site and site is not factory and is not entitled for benefit under notification no. 41/94 which is available when the goods are fabricated at site of the construction to be used.

4. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submits that it is clear from the facts of the case that goods are fabricated in the factory at site where they were to be used for construction. Therefore Ld. Commissioner had rightly allowed the benefit of customs notification no.41/94.

5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions and perused the impugned order.

6. On perusal of the impugned order and going through the show cause notice we find that although the goods have been fabricated in factory but at the site where they were required to be used for construction.

7. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned order. Same is upheld. Appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(Ashok Jindal) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)

Bhanu

2

E/3504/2005-EX(DB)