2010 (3) TMI 575 - AT - Central Excise

Switch Board - Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. exempts only non conventional energy devices/ systems specified in list 9 appended thereto, from levy of duty. Appellant cleared low tension switch boards and pars thereof falling under sub heading 8537.00 and 8538.00 of CETA. Held that - documents on record do not demonstrate that goods fall under SI.No. 273 of Notification. Once the goods independently failed to prove as device or system, that calls for denial of exemption. Benefit of impugned Notification not available.

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of exemption notification for non-conventional energy devices/systems.

In this case, the appellant failed to appear for the hearing despite notice, leading the Tribunal to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the appellant. The Revenue argued that only non-conventional energy devices/systems specified in a particular list of the notification were exempt from duty. The goods cleared by the appellant, low tension switch board and parts thereof, did not fall under the category specified for duty exemption. The appellant's argument that the goods were tailor-made products and should be considered as devices/systems generating non-conventional energy was rejected. The Tribunal found that the goods did not independently serve the purpose of the notification without being associated with a primary device, thus denying the exemption. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant did not demonstrate how the cleared goods served the purpose of non-conventional energy devices/systems. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower authorities and dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal acknowledged the potential prejudice to the appellant due to their absence but noted the lack of an adjournment application and the absence of a stay order after a certain date. The Jt. CDR clarified that the goods cleared did not qualify as non-conventional energy devices/systems as per the notification. The Tribunal concluded that treating the cleared goods as devices/systems would defeat the purpose of the notification since they did not fall under the specified category. The appellant's submissions before the lower authorities failed to prove that the goods qualified as devices or systems as intended by the notification. As the goods did not meet the criteria, the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the notification. The Tribunal upheld the concurrent findings of the lower authorities and dismissed the appeal.