2004 (3) TMI 190 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 123/81-C.E. on various items including air-conditioners, wireless equipment, floodlights, street lights, water pump, motors, base plate, PSCC pipes, and HSD oil.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of certain items for exemption under Notification No. 123/81-C.E. The Commissioner (Appeals) had held that items like air-conditioners, wireless equipment, floodlights, street lights, water pump, motors, base plate, PSCC pipes, and HSD oil were not eligible for exemption.

The appellant argued that all the items in question were essential for their aquaculture business, which was approved as a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking (EOU) by the Government of India. They contended that the goods were required for manufacturing and packaging articles, as specified in the exemption notification. The appellant highlighted the specific uses of each item in their aquaculture operations, such as maintaining controlled temperatures for shrimp growth and ensuring continuous power supply for oxygen supply to shrimps.

The appellant also cited previous tribunal decisions, such as CCE v. Kudrermukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. and CCE, Trichi v. Suvarna Florex Ltd., to support their claim for exemption. These decisions had recognized the eligibility of items like HSD oil and air-conditioning units for similar business activities.

On the other hand, the Senior Departmental Representative (SDR) supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and referred to a Larger Bench decision in Vikas Industrial Gas v. CCE, Allahabad, which held that certain pumps were not eligible for capital goods credit.

The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented, noted the sensitivity and specific requirements of aquaculture business. They emphasized the importance of items like air-conditioners, water pumps, and HSD oil in maintaining the necessary conditions for shrimp growth and operation of the farm. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's interpretation of the exemption notification's broad coverage and the unique needs of aquaculture businesses.

Based on the analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the items in question were indeed covered by the exemption under Notification No. 123/81-C.E. They set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellant, M/s. Waterbase Limited.