Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2006 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (8) TMI 453 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of duty - Words and Phrases - whether the furniture goods can be considered as accessories or not - entitlement of exemption Notification 10/97-C.E - interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- The concerned authority has certified that these goods are required for research purposes only. Revenue is of the view that the impugned goods are furnitures and they are not at all required for research purposes. Therefore, they have ignored the Certificate issued by the competent officer. It is seen that all these items are modular furniture specially designed for the laboratory. It can be seen that the Notification gives exemption not only for the scientific equipments but also for the accessories. Keeping in view the fact that human beings have to interact with the elements of system in work place, even the furniture meant for research purposes are designed ergonomically. In that sense, these furniture are required for the research purpose as certified by the Competent Authority. Hence, when the notification gives exemption for accessories also, a broader interpretation should be given to it to include the modular furniture specially designed. We agree with the learned Consultant that the Apex Court’s decision in the case of CCE, Allahabad v. Ginni Filaments Ltd.[2005 (2) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT] cited by the Adjudicating Authority relates to 100% EOU in the context of Notification 123/81. The facts are quite different in that Notification and they are distinguishable from the present one. Summing up, we find that the conditions of the Notification have been fulfilled by the appellant and the impugned goods can definitely be considered as Accessories to Scientific Equipments. Hence, we allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
|