LAWS(DLH)-2012-2-580

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. RAJENDRA NARAYAN

Decided On February 08, 2012
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Appellant
V/S
Rajendra Narayan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application is disposed of.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.