2015 (4) TMI 815 - SC - Central Excise

Denial of benefit of Notification No.10/97 CE dated 1.3.1997 - Non fulfillment of conditions of notification - equipments supplied to research institutions or universities etc. for research purposes as well as non commercial research purposes. - Held that - respondents intends to rely upon some material which she submits has been downloaded from the web sites of the IITs Universities etc. to whom the goods were supplied in order to demonstrate that the goods supplied were meant for research. Since this material was not produced before the commissioner he did not have any occasion to verify the same or to consider the effect thereof. We are thus of the opinion that it would be appropriate to remand the case back to the adjudicating authority to discuss the aforesaid issue in the light of the material that is sought to be produced by the respondents - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No.10/97 CE dated 1.3.1997 regarding exemption for supply of equipments to specific institutions.
Dispute over whether the goods supplied meet the description required for exemption.
Adjudicating authority's refusal to grant exemption based on lack of evidence regarding the use of transformers for scientific and technical purposes.
Consideration of remanding the case to verify material demonstrating the use of supplied goods for research purposes.
Decision to refer the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration.

Analysis:

The Supreme Court dealt with the interpretation of Notification No.10/97 CE dated 1.3.1997, which exempts the supply of equipments to certain institutions from Central Excise duty. The key issue was whether the goods supplied by the respondents, including power transformers to ITIs, Universities, and National Laboratories, qualified for this exemption. The Notification specifies institutions in column No.3 and conditions in column No.4 regarding the description of goods and required certificates. The goods must be intended for research purposes by scientific and technical institutions to qualify for the exemption.

The Order-in-Original by the Assessing Authority denied the exemption, citing non-fulfillment of conditions mentioned in column 3 regarding the description of goods. The authority emphasized that mere certification from institutions was not sufficient, and the goods must match the description in column 3 for exemption. The respondents did not provide evidence that the transformers were intended for scientific and technical research purposes, leading to the dispute.

In response to the lack of evidence, the Court considered remanding the case to allow the respondents to present material downloaded from the websites of the institutions to demonstrate the research intent of the supplied goods. The Court found it appropriate to send the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh review considering the new evidence. The respondents were granted the opportunity for a personal hearing during this process.

Additionally, the Court refrained from addressing another issue related to manufacture in C.A.No. 7090/99, leaving it open for the Department to raise the matter before the appropriate forum separately. Ultimately, the Court disposed of the appeals by setting aside the Tribunal's order and referring the case back to the adjudicating authority for a comprehensive reconsideration based on the new evidence to determine the eligibility for exemption under the Notification.