2016 (12) TMI 1653 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - N/N. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002 - denial on the ground that the machine purchased by the appellant is not covered under the exemption notification - Held that - the machine is Cream Separator machine. It is clear that Latex Centrifuge testing appears to be testing equipment whereas cream separator machine is used in processing of the rubber. By any stretch of imagination, both the machineries are entirely different and cannot be treated as one - said machine i.e. cream separator machine is not covered under the exemption notification under Sr. No. 3(vi) of the List 32A of the Notification - refund rightly denied - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. for duty paid cream separator machinery.

Analysis:
The appellant purchased a duty paid cream separator machinery from M/s. Alfa Laval India Ltd. and filed a refund claim based on an exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002 List No. 32A, Sr. No. 3(vi). The adjudicating authority rejected the claim, stating that the machinery purchased did not fall under the exemption notification. The appellant's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was also rejected on the same grounds. The key contention was whether the cream separator machinery qualified for the exemption under the specified notification.

The Revenue argued that the cream separator machinery purchased by the appellant fell under Heading 8421.1100 and did not qualify for the exemption under Item No. 3(vi) of List 32A of Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. The Revenue contended that the specific entry for Latex Centrifuge Testing did not cover the impugned machinery. Both lower authorities upheld the rejection of the claim based on this interpretation.

Upon review, the Tribunal examined the relevant entry in List 32A, which included Latex centrifuge testing under Tariff Item 8421 1100. The Tribunal noted that the cream separator machine in question was distinct from Latex Centrifuge testing, which appeared to be testing equipment. The Tribunal emphasized the differences in functionality and purpose between the two types of machinery, concluding that the cream separator machine did not fall under the exemption notification as claimed by the appellant.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of aligning the purchased machinery with the specific criteria outlined in exemption notifications to qualify for refunds. The case underscored the significance of accurate classification and interpretation of goods under relevant tariff items for determining eligibility for exemptions and refunds.