9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (11) TMI 176 - AT - Central ExciseDemand - Notification No. 5/99-C.E., dated 28-2-99 - High Voltage Rectifier - It is to be noted that what is sought to be recovered is short duty payment in relation to high voltage rectifier not necessarily because the product is cleared by Jhansi unit and the certificate is in favour of the Ranipet but also on account of the fact that the product in question has not been established to be part of Electo Static Precipitator System - Appeal is dismissed
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 5/99-C.E. 2. Validity of the certificate issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. 3. Whether the high voltage rectifiers were parts of Electrostatic Precipitator System (EPS). 4. Applicability of Board Circular No. 35/11/94 and Notification No. 78/90-C.E. 5. Claim of revenue neutrality. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Concessional Rate of Duty: The appellants claimed a concessional rate of duty for high voltage rectifiers under Notification No. 5/99-C.E., dated 28-2-99, arguing that these rectifiers were parts of an Electrostatic Precipitator System (EPS) intended for pollution control purposes. The department contended that the appellants failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that the rectifiers were indeed parts of the EPS, and thus, not eligible for the concessional rate. The Tribunal upheld the department's view, stating that the appellants did not meet the required conditions under the notification, specifically Condition No. 55, which mandates certification by a Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests. 2. Validity of the Certificate Issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests: The appellants produced a certificate dated 15-2-99 from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, which they claimed validated their entitlement to the concessional rate. However, the certificate was issued in favor of BHEL, Ranipet, while the goods were cleared from the Jhansi unit. The Tribunal noted that the certificate did not specifically mention high voltage rectifiers and was issued for "Electrostatic Precipitator and its parts" in a singular quantity. The Tribunal concluded that the certificate did not cover the rectifiers in question, and thus, the appellants could not claim the benefit of the notification based on this certificate. 3. Whether the High Voltage Rectifiers Were Parts of Electrostatic Precipitator System (EPS): The department argued that the appellants failed to provide evidence that the high voltage rectifiers were parts of the EPS. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the appellants did not challenge the adjudicating authority's finding that no evidence was produced to establish this claim. The Tribunal emphasized that proving the rectifiers were parts of the EPS was a factual matter, and the appellants' failure to provide cogent evidence meant they could not claim the concessional duty rate. 4. Applicability of Board Circular No. 35/11/94 and Notification No. 78/90-C.E.: The appellants relied on Board Circular No. 35/11/94 and Notification No. 78/90-C.E. to support their claim. However, the Tribunal found significant differences between Notification No. 78/90-C.E. and Notification No. 5/99-C.E. Specifically, Notification No. 78/90-C.E. did not extend concessional rates to parts of listed items, whereas Notification No. 5/99-C.E. did. The Tribunal held that the circular and the earlier notification could not be applied to the current case, as they did not align with the specific requirements of Notification No. 5/99-C.E. 5. Claim of Revenue Neutrality: The appellants contended that the demand was revenue-neutral, arguing that any duty paid by the Jhansi unit could be adjusted against the Ranipet unit. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, stating that the issue was not merely about which unit cleared the goods but also about the failure to establish that the rectifiers were part of the EPS. The Tribunal concluded that the demand was justified and not a matter of revenue neutrality. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellants' arguments. It upheld the department's decision to deny the concessional rate of duty, emphasizing the appellants' failure to meet the conditions of Notification No. 5/99-C.E., specifically the requirement to prove that the high voltage rectifiers were parts of the Electrostatic Precipitator System intended for pollution control.
|
