2005 (9) TMI 471 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim denial based on interpretation of Notification No. 78/90-C.E.
Applicability of Board's Circular No. 35/11/94 on parts of pollution control equipment/system.
Amendment to the notification allowing parts of equipment system to benefit from concessional rate of duty.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the denial of a refund claim by the authorities based on the interpretation of Notification No. 78/90-C.E. The appellants, recipients of parts of Fly Ash Handling System, claimed a refund citing the concessional rate of duty of 5% under the said notification for parts of Pollution Control Equipment. The authorities rejected the claim, stating that the notification only applied to complete pollution control equipment/system, not parts. The appellant's advocate referred to Board's Circular No. 35/11/94, which allowed benefits even for parts if they were part of a complete system. However, since the appellant did not receive the entire system in knock-down condition, the circular did not apply in this case.

The judgment also discussed the amendment to the notification, effective from 16-3-1995, which included parts of the equipment system as eligible for the concessional rate of duty. The advocate presented evidence that two invoices were issued after the amendment, on 30-3-1995, making those parts eligible for exemption. The Tribunal agreed with the advocate's argument, stating that parts became entitled to exemption after 16-3-1994. Consequently, the refund for the two invoices post-amendment was deemed admissible, with the original adjudicating authority tasked with quantifying the refund amount. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant based on this analysis.