2003 (3) TMI 513 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 56/88-Cus., dated 1-3-88 regarding the exemption for LSI/VLSI testers.
2. Whether the goods should be used by the manufacturer of goods falling under Chapter 85.42 to avail the exemption.
3. The burden of proof for eligibility to the exemption.

Summary:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 56/88-Cus., dated 1-3-88
The core issue was whether the LSI/VLSI testers imported by the respondents were eligible for exemption u/s 56/88-Cus. The Revenue contended that the exemption was only applicable if the goods were required for the manufacture of items under Chapter 85.42. The Commissioner (Appeals) had interpreted the notification liberally, stating that the goods need not be sold only to manufacturers of goods under Chapter 85.42 but should be required for such manufacture.

Issue 2: Usage by Manufacturer
The Revenue argued that the exemption should be denied as the goods were sold to customers other than manufacturers of goods under Chapter 85.42. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the notification did not specify that the goods must be used by the manufacturer, only that they were required for the manufacture of goods under Chapter 85.42.

Issue 3: Burden of Proof
The Revenue emphasized that the burden of proof to claim exemption lies with the assessee, citing precedents from the Hon'ble Apex Court. The assessee argued that the notification did not require an end-use certificate and that the goods were capable of being used for manufacturing goods under Chapter 85.42.

Majority Decision:
The majority decision, including the opinion of the third member, upheld the interpretation of the Commissioner (Appeals). It was concluded that the term "required for manufacture" did not necessitate actual use by the manufacturer of goods under Chapter 85.42. The notification was interpreted to mean that the goods should be capable of being used for such manufacture. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Separate Judgment:
Member (Technical) dissented, arguing that the exemption should be strictly construed and that the goods must be shown to be required by the manufacturer of items under Chapter 85.42. However, the majority opinion prevailed, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.