Appeal No. E/5/2008 (Arising out of OIA-COMMR-A-/201/VDR-II/2007 dated 28/09/2007 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-Vadodara-II) and Order No. A/10082/2017. Case: Aneri Construction Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-Vadodara-II. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Appeal No. E/5/2008 (Arising out of OIA-COMMR-A-/201/VDR-II/2007 dated 28/09/2007 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-Vadodara-II) and Order No. A/10082/2017 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Anand Nainawati, Advocate and For Respondents: Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative |
| Judges | D.M. Misra, Member (J) and Ashok K. Arya, Member (T) |
| Issue | Consumer Law |
| Judgement Date | January 18, 2017 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
Ashok K. Arya, Member (T), (West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad)
-
The appellant namely M/s. Aneri Construction is in appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Vadodara, who upholds the order-in-original dated 30.04.2007, which rejects the refund claim amounting to Rs. 11,56,518.00 of the appellant M/s. Aneri Construction.
-
The appellant has been represented by the Ld. Advocate, Shri Anand Nainawati and the Revenue has been represented by the Ld. AR, Shri Alok Srivastava.
-
Both sides have been heard. The matter concerns with the refund claim of Rs. 11,56,518.00 filed under Section 11B of CEA, 1944 for excise duty paid erroneously in excess. The appellant claims that the amount of refund claim of Rs. 11,56,518.00 has been paid by the job worker, M/s. Welspun Gujarat Stahl Rohren Ltd., Bharuch inadvertedly/erroneously as the subject activity of coating pipes/tubes did not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of CEA, 1944.
3.1 After having carefully gone through the facts of the case and the submissions of both the sides, it is clear that the subject activity of coating of pipes/tubes amounts to manufacture and there is no erroneous payment of central excise duty in excess in the present case. In this regard, Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order observes as under:-
4.5 In the context of the present case, I find that vide note 5 under chapter 73 Articles of Iron or Steel. It has been provided as follows:-
Note. 5 In relation to the Pipes & Tubes of Heading 7304, 7305 and 7306 the process of coating with cement or polyethylene or other plastic materials shall amount to manufacture.
4.6 The said chapter note was introduced in the Central Excise Tariff in the year 2005-2006, the said chapter note only covered the heading 7304 and 7305. The heading 7306 was introduced only in the Finance Bill, 2006 and became effective from 01.06.2006. Thus, vide amendment carried out vide finance Bill, 2006 heading 73.06 was brought within the purview of chapter note 5 under chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff. The said chapter note very clearly brings out that the processes of coating of Pipes & Tubes of heading 7304, 7305 and 7306 with cement or polyethylene or other plastic materials shall amount to manufacture. It is not in dispute that MS Pipes supplied to M/s. WGSRL., Bharuch were coated with 3 LPE (a plastic material) by the letter and cleared from their factory vide invoice Nos. 1363, 1364, 1370, 1372 and...
To continue reading
Request your trial