9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 905 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of exemption of Notification No. 6/2002 dated 1.3.2002 - Imposition of penalty - Held that - there is no dispute on the classification of the goods and the adjudicating authority in para 21.04 of his order has clearly confirmed that the appellant has complied with the conditions of Sl. No. 217 which stipulates that the chassis must be duty paid. In view of the settled legal position by the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases, appellants are eligible for the exemption under Sl. No. 217 of Notification No. 6/2002 dated 1.3.2002. The demand is liable to be set aside. Since the appellants are eligible for nil rate of duty, question of imposition of penalty does not arise on both the appellants - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues: Denial of exemption under Notification No. 6/2002 for drilling rigs classified under CETH 8705.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai, the issue at hand was the denial of exemption under Notification No. 6/2002 for drilling rigs classified under CETH 8705. The adjudicating authority had accepted the classification under 8705 but assessed duty at 16% under Sl. No. 198 of the notification, thus denying exemption under Sl. No. 217. The Tribunal noted that there was no dispute on the classification of the goods as drilling rigs under 8705, a special purpose motor vehicle. The consultant for the appellant argued that when there are multiple entries in an exemption notification, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the more beneficial one. Citing relevant Supreme Court decisions, it was established that the appellant had complied with the conditions of Sl. No. 217, which required the chassis to be duty paid. Therefore, the appellants were deemed eligible for the exemption under Sl. No. 217 of the notification. Consequently, the demand was set aside, and since the appellants were eligible for a nil rate of duty, no penalty could be imposed. The impugned order was overturned, and the appeals were allowed.
|
