9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , a show cause notice was issued to the appellants raising a demand ofRs. 1,29,428.34 for the clearances of Item 68 goods during the financial year 1977-78. The department's case is that the appellants had availed the exemption under Notification 176/77-C.E. even though the goods were not exempted from payment of duty. 4. In their reply, the appellants stated that the ADV axles manufactured by them and falling under T.I.68 were exempted under Notification 55/75-C.E. as they are component parts of carts which are agricultural implements. In support of their contention, they relied on judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Rati Ram Harmonium (80 U.P. Sales Tax 168). The appellants also urged that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that ADV wheels and axles, though fitted in AD Vehicles, could not be treated as 'agricultural implements' for granting exemption from the whole of the Central Excise duty. On 29.5.1984, orders were passed by the Collector (Appeals) New Delhi upholding the contentions of the appellants. 7. The UP State Agriculture and Industrial Corporation have registered the products as 'Agricultural implements'. The Sales Tax Department has accepted the products as 'Agricultural Implements'. 8. The Import Licence has been issued on the basis that the products are agricultural implements'. As regards the ISI, the wheels and axles have been treated as 'agricultural implements' and have been approved by the Farm Implements and Machinery Sectional C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 980 E.L.T. 291 (Hyldyn Glass Works v. M.L. Budhwar) it was held that when the expression in a notification is very clear and is not restricted or limited, it is not necessary to fall back upon the BTN to determine issue and scope of the notification. 12. Shri Jain further urged that the Notification 105/75-C.E. was not considered by the Collector. Exempted goods are not exciseable according to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nagarath Paints -1988 (33) E.L.T. 58 (All.) = 1978 TLR (NOC) 45 and the High Court held that the excisable goods become non-excisable after exemption. Reliance on the Delhi High Court decision in the case of M/s. Vishal Andhra Industries - 1983 E.L.T. 2265 (Delhi) cannot be sustained. 13. Smt, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for decision in this appeal are : (i) Whether the products manufactured by the appellants are 'agricultural implements' and entitled to the benefit of Notification 55/75-C.E. dated 1.3.75; (ii) Whether the demand is barred by time; (iii) Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification 176/77-C.E.; and (iv) Whether the penalty is justified. 15. The appellants admittedly manufactured ADV axles and parts thereof. Their main contention is that these are agricultural implements and the benefit of Notification 55/75-C.E. exempted agricultural implements and parts thereof but excluding (i) power operated agricultural implements and parts thereof; and (ii) implements designed for use as attachments with tractors or power til ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t a tractor would not be an "agricultural machinery or implement". Merely from the fact that tractor is used on agricultural land and drives certain agricultural implements, it was held that it did not acquire the character of agricultural machinery or implements. In the decision reported in 1963 (14) STC 262 (supra), it is stated that agricultural implements is an implement that is used in agriculture. Emphasis is on the words 'implements'. The axles for carts or parts thereof, though they are necessary parts of a bull cart, cannot be treated as 'agricultural implement'. It is thus manifest that instruments and implements etc., necessary for carrying on the business of fanning alone can be treated as implements of agriculture. We follow t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contentions raised by the appellants in regard to the exemption of the products, the mere absence of the classification list will not be sufficient to hold that there was suppression or clandestine removal of the products. The show cause notice has been issued after a considerable delay and, hence, we hold that the claim is barred by limitation.
18. Regarding the eligibility of Notification 176/77-C.E., the question is purely accademic in the view taken by us on the question of time-bar. Hence no finding is called for on this point.
19. In view of the above circumstances, we hold that the imposition of penalty is not justified.
20. In the result, the appeal is allowed on the question of time-bar. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
