2006 (8) TMI 453 - AT - Central Excise

Demand 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.

Summary

Issues:
Entitlement of exemption under Notification No. 10/97-C.E. for furniture supplied to specific institutions.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the OIA No. 98/2005-C.E. passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore. The dispute arose when the Revenue demanded duty on furniture supplied by the appellants to certain institutions, claiming that the goods were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 10/97-C.E. The Revenue argued that the goods did not qualify as Scientific and Technical Instruments or Accessories as per the notification. The lower authorities upheld the demand, penalty, and interest imposed on the appellants, leading to the appeal challenging the decision.

The appellant's representative contended that the goods should be considered as Accessories under the notification, emphasizing that a Certificate issued by the competent authority confirmed the requirement of the goods for research purposes. The appellant relied on various legal precedents to support their argument, highlighting the importance of the Certificate in cases of exemption subject to specific conditions. The appellant also argued against the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC, citing relevant case laws to support their position.

On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the items supplied were not accessories to scientific equipment or apparatus meant for research. However, upon careful examination of the case records, the Tribunal found that the conditions specified in the Notification, including the certification of the goods for research purposes by the competent authority, had been met by the appellants. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the supplied furniture, which included laboratory-specific modular items, designed to optimize human well-being and system performance in a research environment.

The Tribunal delved into the concept of Ergonomics, emphasizing the importance of designing furniture for research purposes to enhance human interaction and overall system efficiency. By interpreting the Notification broadly to include specially designed modular furniture as Accessories to Scientific Equipments, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were entitled to the exemption. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellants based on the fulfillment of the Notification's conditions regarding the supplied furniture.