Alstom T & D India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that duty exemption available to all items of machinery, including instruments, apparatus and appliances, auxiliary equipment and their component parts required for setting up of water treatment plants. Accordingly, duty paid under protest is required to be refunded back.
Facts- The appellants received orders from M/s. Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Ltd., Hyderabad for supply of goods for use in project of Moulana Abdul Kalam, Hyderabad, Sujala Shranti (drinking water supply) and Sippu Lift Irrigation Project, Gujarat.
The appellant informed the department that they intended to clear the goods in the nature of 24 numbers of Capacitor Voltage Transformers, 220 KV Control and Relay Panel and 220 KV SF 6 Circuit Breaker and 66 KV Circuit Breakers by availing the exemption as per Sl. No.7 (1) of Notification No.6/2006 dated 01.03.2006 (presently Serial No. 233 of Notification No.12/2012 dated 17.03.2012) read with condition No. 4 of Sl.No.7 of Notification No.6/2006 dated 01.03.2006 (presently condition No.23 of Serial No.233 of Notification No.12/2012 dated 17.03.2012).
As per the above Notification, the exemption was available to all items of machinery, including instruments, apparatus and appliances, auxiliary equipment and their component parts required for setting up of water treatment plants. The condition no.23 imposed by the Notification is that an assessee has to produce a certificate issued by the District Collector stating that the goods cleared for the intended use specified in column (3) of the Table of the Notification.
The department was of the view that certificates issued by the District Collector mentioned that the goods were intended for use in the pumping station for transmission of water to the water treatment plant and not for use at the plant itself.
Conclusion- Tribunal in the case of P & C Constructions Pvt. Ltd. has held that when certificate has been issued by District Collector, and TWAD Board stating that the goods are intended for setting up of the water treatment plant, the department cannot deny the exemption. The issue was in respect to the eligibility of credit on PSC pipes which were used for setting up of the water treatment plant and needed for carrying water from its source to the plant and from there to the storage facility.
Held that the rejection of the refund claims is not justified. The impugned orders are set aside. The appeals are allowed with consequential reliefs if any.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
1. Brief facts are that the appellants received orders from M/s. Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Ltd., Hyderabad for supply of goods for use in project of Moulana Abdul Kalam, Hyderabad, Sujala Shranti (drinking water supply) and Sippu Lift Irrigation Project, Gujarat. The appellant informed the department that they intended to clear the goods in the nature of 24 numbers of Capacitor Voltage Transformers, 220 KV Control and Relay Panel and 220 KV SF 6 Circuit Breaker and 66 KV Circuit Breakers by availing the exemption as per Sl. No.7 (1) of Notification No.6/2006 dated 01.03.2006 (presently Serial No. 233 of Notification No.12/2012 dated 17.03.2012) read with condition No. 4 of Sl.No.7 of Notification No.6/2006 dated 01.03.2006 (presently condition No.23 of Serial No.233 of Notification No.12/2012 dated 17.03.2012). As per the above Notification, the exemption was available to all items of machinery, including instruments, apparatus and appliances, auxiliary equipment and their component parts required for setting up of water treatment plants. The condition no.23 imposed by the Notification is that an assessee has to produce a certificate issued by the District Collector stating that the goods cleared for the intended use specified in column (3) of the Table of the Notification.
2. ‘The condition no. 23 reads as under:
“if, a certificate issued by the Collector or District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner of the District in which the plant is located, is produced to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction, to the effect that such goods are cleared for the intended use specified in column (3) of the Table.”
3. The department was of the view that certificates issued by the District Collector mentioned that the goods were intended for use in the pumping station for transmission of water to the water treatment plant and not for use at the plant itself. Accordingly, the Department advised the appellant that they were not eligible for exemption of the Notification. The appellants cleared the goods on payment of duty under protest. Subsequently, they filed three refund claims for the duty paid in respect of the goods cleared as per the Notification.
4. Three separate Show Cause Notices were issued proposing to reject the refund claims alleging that the duty paid by them under protest is correct and that the appellants are not eligible for refund. Being aggrieved by such order, the appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide orders impugned herein upheld the order of rejection of refund claims. Hence the appellant is now before the Tribunal.
5. The Ld. Counsel Shri Joseph Prabhakar appeared and argued for the appellant. The relevant notification was adverted to by the Ld. Counsel which reads as under:
