Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 41 - AT - Central ExciseCNC machines and other goods which were supplied by them to various scientific and research institutions such as ISRO, BARC, etc. - Benefit of N/N. 10/1997-CE dated 01.03.1997 - case of Revenue is that the appellant’s products are machinery falling under Chapter 84 and do not fall in any of the categories mentioned in the notification - HELD THAT:- A plain reading of the exemption notification would show that unlike some other notifications, this notification did not restrict the benefit to goods falling under chapter heading. Therefore, regardless of which chapter heading of CETH the goods fall, the exemption would apply as long as they match the description of the goods and fulfil other conditions. There is no dispute regarding fulfilment of the conditions of the notification. The only question is whether the CNC machines and other equipment manufactured by the appellants specifically for supply to scientific institutions can be called scientific equipment or otherwise. This issue is no longer res integra and in the case of GODREJ APPLIANCES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VAPI [2008 (2) TMI 393 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], this exemption notification has been interpreted by the Tribunal to cover the equipment supplied to scientific and research institutions for the purpose of scientific research whether or not such goods fall under chapter 90. In the present case, CNC machines and other equipment which have been manufactured are no doubt meant for and supplied to scientific institutions for their research and we find no reason to hold that these cannot be called scientific and technical equipment within the meaning of the notification 10/1997-CE. We, therefore, find that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption notification 10/1997-CE on merits. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- When the assessee has been audited regularly and has not clandestinely removed any goods and has supplied all goods to Government research institutions. The appellants are themselves Public Sector Undertaking and the department has made no case whatsoever to allege that there was fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of duty on behalf of the appellant - the extended period of limitation is wrongly invoked and entire demand is hit by limitation as well. The appellant had made out a case both on merits and on limitation. Consequently, the question of penalty under Sec.11AC does not arise. he appellant had made out a case both on merits and on limitation. Consequently, the question of penalty under Sec.11AC does not arise. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|