ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. The appellant is challenging the impugned O-I-A No. 14/2002-C.E., dated 26-3-2002 confirming the demands on the Railway Contractor who has manufactured PSC Slabs and Ballast Retainers for use in the Railways. The appellant is seeking the benefit of Notification No. 62/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995, which exempts goods manufactured at the site of construction of buildings for use at such site. There is no dispute with regard to the article falling within the description of goods in the Table of the Notification 36/94, dated 1-3-1994 and also falling under Heading 68.07. The only dispute raised is as to whether the goods manufactured at the Railway premises near Railway Goods Shed at Tenali, which is situated very close to the Railway Track running from Vijayawada to Chennai, can be treated as for use in the construction of buildings with Railways in terms of the Notification. The authorities have taken a view that the Notification is not applicable as the goods are not manufactured at the site of the construction of building for use at such site whereas the goods in dispute were manufactured at a place nearby Railway Goods Shed at Tenali and, further held that they were not manufactured at the site of construction of the building.
2. We have heard both sides in the matter and have perused the judgments cited before us. The main ground taken by the Counsel is that the issue is covered by the Tribunal rulings rendered in the case of Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation v. CCE, New Delhi – 1999 (114) E.L.T. 421 (Tribunal) and Jaypee Bela Cement v. CCE, Raipur – 2001 (128) E.L.T. 225 (Tri. – Del.) which has followed an earlier judgment rendered in the case of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner – 2001 (130) E.L.T. 290 (Tri.) = 2000 (40) RLT 833 (Tribunal). Further, the Counsel has also stated that there was no suppression of facts with an intention to evade duty as there was Notification available for claiming benefit. Further, the Railway themselves, in the Contract, had informed the Contractor that they are exempted from duty.
3. The learned JDR’s contention is that the goods are not manufactured in the site where construction takes place while the Counsel submits that the terms in the Notification “Constructed at site” is required to be interpreted liberally so as to admit within its ambit the site allotted to the Contractors for manufacturing the goods to be used in the construction work at such site, under the terms of Agreement, as has been held in the citations referred to by him.
4. On our careful consideration, we notice that the terms of the Notification has been interpreted liberally in the case of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. holding that the expression ‘manufactured at the site of construction’ used in these Notifications in question, has to be interpreted liberally, so as to admit within its ambit the site allotted to the Contractors for manufacturing the goods to be used in the construction work at such site under the terms of agreement. There is no dispute that the contractor herein had manufactured the goods in the site made available by the Railways and the goods, which are manufactured, are being used for the construction purpose of the Railways. Merely because the site is little away from the place of construction that by itself the benefit of the Notification cannot be denied as held by the Tribunal in the cited judgments. The demands are also barred by time, as there is no intention to evade duty. The appellant was under the bona fide belief that till date no duty was leviable in terms of the specific clause in the Contract wherein the Railways had indicated to the appellant that the goods are exempted. In that view of the matter, the appellant succeeds on both grounds and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open Court on conclusion of hearing)