M/S. Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Cce-Raipur

[Arising out of Order- in-appeal No. 03/Commr(Adj)/RPR/2006 dated 3.1.2006 passed by CCE-Raipur]

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it would 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 Department Authorities?

M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

CCE-Raipur Respondent

Appearance: Shri Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant

Shri Pramod Kumar, JCDR for the respondent.

Coram: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B.Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Final Order No. 52384/2015

Per: Ashok Jindal

Appellant is in appeal against the impugned order denying the benefit of notification no. 6/02 Central Excise dated 1/3/2002. The facts of this case are that the appellant supply the steel plates to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and claimed exemption under notification no. 6/02 Central Excise dated 1/3/2002 serial no. 260A. The appellant produced the necessary certificate issued by the competent authority to issue the certificate before the authorities below for claiming the exemption under said notification but the Adjudicating Authority denied the benefit of notification on the ground that steel plates are not equipments as per entry no. 260A of the notification 6/02. Therefore, appellant is not entitled for exemption. Consequently, the demand of duty along with interest was confirmed and penalty is also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant is before us.

2. The ld. counsel for the appellant submits that the steel plates which appellant has supplied to DMRC are part of equipments/structures of DMRC and same is covered under the serial no. 260A of the notification no. 6/02. He further submits that the appellant has obtained the necessary certificate issued by the competent authority to claim exemption. Therefore, he submits that the appellant are entitled to claim the exemption under said notification. He also drew our attention to the clarification issued by Joint Secretary (TRU) vide F. No. 354/7/2003 dated 14/09/2004 to say that the items, in question, are part of traction equipments. He also took the support of the decision of this tribunal in the case of COMMR. of C.EX. Mumbai- III Vs. Precihole Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2011 (272) ELT 423 (Tri-Mumbai) and COMMR. of CUS. (Imports), Mumbai Vs. Tullow India Operations Limited reported in 2005 (189) ELT 401 (SC) to say that when the appellant has produced required certification to claim exemption issued by the competent authority, the appellant is entitled to claim the benefit of notification. On the other hand, ld. DR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submits that the steel plates, in question, are neither equipments nor rolling stock to claim the duty free exemption under the said notification.

3. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.

4. The facts of this case are not in dispute. The short issue before us is that whether appellant is entitled to claim duty free exemption under notification no. 6/02 dated 1/3/2002 at serial no. 260A for steel plates required by them to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation of India or not. For better appreciation, the provisions of notification no. 6/02 are extracted here in below:

All items of equipment including machinery and rolling stock, procured by or on behalf of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. for use in the Delhi MRTS project.

5. On going through the said provisions, the conditions stipulated to the appellant is that the appellant is to produce the certificate issued by Managing Director, Co-Director- Rolling Stock Electrical and Signaling and Co-Directors-Finance of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation to the effect that:

If, before the clearance of the goods, the manufacturer produces to the Deputy Commissioner of Central excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central excise, as the case may be, a certificate from the Chairman or the Managing Director or the Director (Rolling Stock, Electrical and Signaling) or the Director (Finance) of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., to the effect that-

(i) The goods are produced by or on behalf of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. for use in the Delhi MRTS project; and

(ii) The goods are part of the inventory maintained by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and shall be finally owned by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

6. We have gone through the certificate produced by the appellant and the said certificate has been issued by Director Rolling Stock, Electrical and Signaling, DMRC certifying the conditions as that the conditions as under as stipulated in condition no. 61 attached to serial no. 260A of the notification:

Certified that:

1. The goods are procured by or on behalf of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. for use in the Delhi MRTS project and;

2. The goods are part of the inventory maintained by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and shall be finally owned by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

Thereafter the short issue remained that whether steel plates cleared by the appellant are qualify equipment or not.

7. As per notification, all items of equipments are entitled for exemption. Definitely the steel plates have been used by the appellant for fabrication of equipment/structures which also have the support of the TRU letter No. F. No. 354/7/2003 dated 14.09.2004 to say the item in question is part of traction equipment. Therefore, we hold that appellant has complied with the conditions of notification no. 6/02 dated 1/3/2002 serial no. 260A, the appellant is entitled for benefit of the said notification.

8. In these terms, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.

(Ashok Jindal)

Member (Judicial)

(B. Ravichandran)

Member (Technical)

Ritu