1993 (7) TMI 174 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of 'Acqua Guard' under Heading 84.21.
2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 155/86-C.E.
3. Interpretation of the terms "filtering" and "purifying".

Detailed Analysis:

Classification of 'Acqua Guard' under Heading 84.21:

The dispute centers around the classification of a water-filter-cum-purifier called 'Acqua Guard' under Heading 84.21, which covers "centrifuges, including centrifugal driers; filtering or purifying machinery and apparatus for liquids or gases." The Assistant Collector initially approved the classification, extending the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 155/86-C.E., which exempts water filters of a capacity not exceeding 40 litres. However, the Collector (Appeals) set aside this order, leading to the present appeal.

Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 155/86-C.E.:

The appellants argued that their product satisfied both conditions for exemption, being a water filter with a capacity not exceeding 40 litres. They contended that the Notification did not explicitly exclude water filters-cum-purifiers. The appellants provided a detailed description of their product, highlighting components like an activated carbon cartridge and an ultra violet lamp, which they claimed ensured safe drinking water by removing impurities and eliminating bacteria and viruses.

The Departmental Representative opposed this view, asserting that the Notification only covered water filters simplicitor and not combined apparatus like water filters-cum-purifiers. The DR emphasized that the Notification's language should be interpreted strictly, covering only those devices that act solely as water filters.

Interpretation of the Terms "Filtering" and "Purifying":

The Tribunal observed that while filtration is a method of purification, the terms "filtering" and "purifying" are not synonymous and should be distinguished. The Tribunal noted that the word "or" in Heading 84.21 could be used in a conjunctive sense, meaning the entry could cover devices used for filtering, purifying by other methods, or a combination of both.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the Notification No. 155/86-C.E. specifically referred to "water filters" and did not mention purifying machinery or apparatus. Therefore, the exemption was intended only for devices using the filtration method for purification, excluding combined apparatus like water filters-cum-purifiers.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal rejected the appeal, holding that the 'Acqua Guard' did not qualify for the exemption under Notification No. 155/86-C.E. The judgment emphasized that the Notification covered only water filters simplicitor and not combined apparatus. The appellants' claim regarding the effectiveness of the U.V. treatment for ensuring safe drinking water was not fully established due to a lack of technical details. Thus, the product in question was not eligible for the exemption, and the appeal was dismissed.