2003 (11) TMI 163 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 10/97-C.E. is available to D.G. sets and control panels manufactured and removed by M/s. Sudhir Engg. Co.

Analysis:
In this appeal, the issue revolves around the eligibility of D.G. sets and control panels for the benefit of Notification No. 10/97-C.E. The appellant, represented by Shri Naveen Mullick, argued that the goods supplied to National Physical Laboratory (NPL) were essential for research purposes and thus qualified for the exemption under the notification. The certificates issued by the Director of NPL supported this claim. The appellant contended that D.G. sets and control panels were accessories to scientific and technical instruments used in research, citing precedents and emphasizing the necessity of power backup for uninterrupted research activities. Reference was made to previous tribunal decisions to strengthen the argument. The appellant maintained that the goods should be cleared without duty payment based on the notification.

On the contrary, Shri Vikas Kumar, representing the department, opposed the appellant's stance by asserting that D.G. sets and control panels did not meet the criteria of being accessories to scientific instruments, as they were of general use. Drawing distinctions from previous cases, Kumar argued that the goods in question did not serve as adjuncts or additions enhancing the functionality or comfort of scientific instruments.

The Tribunal, after considering both arguments, interpreted Notification No. 10/97-C.E., which exempts accessories of scientific and technical instruments. The Tribunal concurred with the department's view that D.G. sets and control panels primarily provided power backup during electricity failures and were not accessories to scientific instruments. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal emphasized that an article must serve as an adjunct or addition for convenient use, beauty, comfort, or secondary importance to be considered an accessory. As the D.G. sets and control panels did not meet these criteria, the appeal by the appellants was rejected.