Commissioner of Central Excise vs Rajendra Narayan

CM 2225/2012 in CEAC 3/2012, CM 2414/2012 in CEAC 4/2012, CM 2418/2012 in CEAC 5/2012, CM 2447/2012 in CEAC 6/2012 : Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application is disposed of.

CM 2227/2012 in CEAC 3/2012, CM 2416/2012 in CEAC 4/2012, CM 2420/2012 in CEAC 5/2012, CM 2449/2012 in CEAC 6/2012

This is an application for condonation of delay of 82 days in refilling of the appeal. It is stated in the application that Mr. Mukesh Anand, Adv. was earlier handling these matters and there was change of the standing counsel resulting in delay. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.

Application is disposed of.

CEAC 3/2012, CEAC 4/2012, CEAC 5/2012, CEAC 6/2012

These appeals by the Commissioner of Central Excise are directed against the order dated 4th March, 2011 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) [2011 (267) E.L.T. 574 (Tribunal)].

The Tribunal in the impugned order has relied upon Notification No. 1/2011-CE. (N.T.), dated 17-2-2011 and has allowed the appeals filed by the respondent-assessee. The said notification reads as under :

Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that a practice was generally prevalent regarding levy of duty of excise (including non-levy thereof) u/s 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), on goods of the description given in the Table below, and that such goods were liable to duty of excise which was not being levied u/s 3 of the said Act according to the said practice, during the period as specified in the said Table, namely :

Description

Tariff sub-heading

Period

(1)

(2)

(3)

Goods manufactured at the site of construction for use in construction work at such site.

Sub-headings of Chapter 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) except sub-headings 6804, 6805, 6811, 6812 and 6813.

1st March, 2006 to 6th July, 2009 (Both inclusive)

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11C of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the whole of duty of excise leviable under the said Act on such goods falling under such tariff sub-headings as specified in the said Table but for the said practice, shall not be required to be paid for the period specified in column (3) of the said Table, subject to fulfillment of condition that the benefit under this notification shall not be admissible unless the unit claiming benefit in terms of this notification reverse the input credit, if any, taken in respect of inputs used in manufacture of such goods on which the said duty of excise was not levied during the aforesaid period in accordance with the said practice."

There is no dispute that the respondent-assessee had manufactured pre-fabricated components, which have been used in the construction of the Delhi Metro. The respondent-assessee were carrying on construction of the Delhi Metro.

Ld. counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent-assessees are not entitled to exemption under the said notification as the goods were not manufactured at the site of the construction for use in the construction work at the said site. It is submitted that a question of law arises and notice should be issued to the respondent. It is not possible to agree with the said contention. In para 3 of the impugned order it has been pointed out that Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. had contracted and called upon the respondent-assessees to construct prefabricated components of different segments to be used in elevated viaducts or manufacture of rings for the tunnel, launching girders and trusses in respect of a project of the said Corporation at Delhi. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. was carrying on construction all over Delhi as the Metro Rail was being constructed at different locations, spread all over. The construction site is not located at one place but spread all over. The construction is also linked and connected. For the purpose of pre-fabricating the components a specific casting yard premises was allotted by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. The said casting yard itself constitutes the construction site. From the said construction site components have been moved to the different locations where elevated viaducts of the tunnel were being constructed. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and that the construction was done virtually all over Delhi and construction sites were interconnected, it cannot be said that any substantial question of law arises. The appeals are dismissed.