2006 (8) TMI 189 - SC - Central Excise

Whether the assessee was not entitled to the benefit under the exemption Notification No. 205/88-C.E. and subsequent Notification Nos. 5/98-C.E. and 5/99-C.E.? Held that - As the point involved in the present case is identical to the point involved in Sulzer's case 2004 (2) TMI 240 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI wherein the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 5/99-C.E. was granted to the assessee who is also in the business of manufacture of turbines and parts of turbines same as assessee in this case the impugned orders are set aside, the appeals accepted and the assessee is held to be entitled to the benefit of Notifications in question. In favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Tribunal's order allowing Revenue's appeal and remitting the case back for redecision. Benefit of exemption under Notification No. 205/88-C.E. and subsequent Notifications. Acceptance of principle laid down in earlier Tribunal case. Revenue's appeals against Commissioner's orders. Identical facts to earlier Tribunal case. Department's challenge to principle laid down in earlier case. Entitlement to benefit of Notifications.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Tribunal's order allowing the Revenue's appeal and remitting the case for redecision. The assessee, a public limited company engaged in turbine manufacture, faced denial of exemption under Notification No. 205/88-C.E. and subsequent Notifications for turbines cleared in CKD and SKD conditions. The Commissioner upheld the denial but quashed the demand on limitation, restricting the duty demand to Rs. 17,400 with a penalty. The first appellate authority later granted exemption under Notification No. 5/99-C.E., leading to the Revenue filing appeals against both decisions.

During arguments, the assessee relied on a previous Tribunal decision in a similar case granting exemption under Notification No. 5/99-C.E. The Tribunal in the present case distinguished this earlier decision, stating the goods were not cleared in CKD/SKD condition. However, the assessee argued that the facts were identical to the earlier case, which the department had accepted without challenge in court, rendering it final.

Citing various legal precedents, the Court emphasized that when the department accepts a Tribunal's principle in one case, it cannot raise the same point in other cases, preventing selective application of principles. The Court noted that the point in the present case was identical to the earlier case, and since the department accepted the principle there, it could not take a different stand in the present appeals. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, appeals accepted, and the assessee held entitled to the benefit of the relevant Notifications, with no costs awarded.