9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim for DEPB credit on goods described as fibre tip pens; Classification of goods as writing instruments for DEPB benefits; Interpretation of DEPB scheme guidelines. Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal considered the claim for DEPB credit on goods labeled as fibre tip pens, which were rejected by the lower authorities due to not being classified as writing instruments under Sr. No. 1/63 of the DEPB scheme. The Tribunal noted that the goods exported were actually marking systems for recorders and plotters, as per the submitted catalogue, and were not standalone writing instruments. The appellants argued that despite being parts of marking systems, the products should be considered writing instruments. However, the Tribunal found that these goods were not designed for human handwriting but for use in refineries and plants to track processes, temperature, etc. Additionally, the DEPB Committee had specifically decided that marking systems for recorders and plotters do not qualify as writing instruments for DEPB benefits. The Tribunal highlighted that the goods in question could only function when attached to specific equipment and were not intended for manual writing. It was emphasized that the DEPB Committee's clarification explicitly excluded marking systems for recorders and plotters from the category of writing instruments eligible for DEPB benefits. Despite the appellants referencing a previous Tribunal order that had set aside a Commissioner's decision denying DEPB benefits, the Tribunal clarified that this did not override the DEPB Committee's ruling or the CBEC circular. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to reject the DEPB credit claim, as the appellants failed to demonstrate any grounds to challenge the DEPB Committee's classification or the CBEC's directive. In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the rejection of the DEPB credit claim for goods described as fibre tip pens, which were actually marking systems for recorders and plotters. The decision was based on the goods not meeting the criteria of being standalone writing instruments under the DEPB scheme guidelines, as clarified by the DEPB Committee and supported by the CBEC circular. The appellants' argument that the products should be considered writing instruments was deemed invalid, leading to the dismissal of their appeal.
|
