M/S. Gtp Granites Ltd vs Cce, Salem

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.60/2014 dated 6.2.2014 and 59/2014 dated 6.2.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem)

M/s. GTP Granites Ltd. M/s. Ashok Granites Ltd. Appellants

Vs.

CCE, Salem Respondent

Appearance

Shri S. Kannappan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent

CORAM

Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member

Date of Hearing: 2.02.2015 Date of Decision: 2.02.2015

Final Order No. 40089-40090 / 2015

Per D.N. Panda

Record reveals that the goods procured duty free by the EOU appellants were used for raising of granites from the quarries owned by State of Tamilnadu. Learned Advocate appearing for appellants submitted that the quarries belong to the State of Tamilnadu and Tamilnadu Minerals Ltd. permits the processors to raise the granite as well as process for the purpose of export. Appellant carried out such activity in terms of Rule 8A of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and also as per agreement dated 7.1.2002 (refer page 50 in appeal folder). Raising granites and processing the same for export, the 100% EOU appellant has fulfilled the benefit of Notification No. 37/2000-CE dated 8.5.2000. Accordingly, not only stay application may be allowed. But appeals may also be allowed.

2. On the contrary Revenues submission is that appellant did not own lease. Therefore, benefit of the Notification above shall not be given to the appellant.

3. Heard both sides and perused the relevant document placed before us as stated above.

4. It appears from record that the owner of the quarry is the Government of Tamilnadu. The appellant was user of the same in accordance with agreement referred to above. Perusal of Rule 8A of Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 shows that grant of quarry lease is the domain of the State Government. In accordance with such power, the State has equal power to permit use thereof under any other arrangement for raising the output from the quarry. Since the quarry belongs to the State and appellant was user thereof, the goods procured without payment of excise duty used in quarrying granite and processing thereof for export is not disentitled to exemption benefit under the notification. Not owing lease has not debarred the appellant to quarry granite and process the same. If the condition of processing of procured granite from the quarry of the State under an agreement is fulfilled by the 100% EOU appellant, benefit of the notification is undeniable since any denial thereof would defeat the object thereof

5. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. So also the stay applications disposed.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(R. PERIASAMI) (D.N. Panda) Technical Member Judicial Member

Rex

3