9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1997 (4) TMI 174 - AT - Central Excise
Issues: Classification of marine pumps under Notifications 57/78-C.E., 132/84-C.E., and 55/86-C.E. based on whether they are primarily designed for handling water.
Analysis: 1. Facts of the Case: The respondents manufactured marine pumps falling under erstwhile TI 30A and claimed the benefit of Notifications 57/78-C.E., 132/84-C.E., and 55/86-C.E., which grant a nil rate of duty if the pump is primarily designed for handling water. The technical aspect confirmed that the pump is a centrifugal and power-driven pump. 2. Appellant's Contention: The Collector argued that the marine pump was not primarily designed for handling water, leading to the proposed denial of the benefit under the mentioned Notifications. The lower appellate authority found that the pump, known as a bilge pump or marine beacon pump, was primarily designed for handling water based on evidence and certificates from Defense authorities. 3. Revenue's Appeal: The learned SDR highlighted that the pump was a beacon marine pump made of bronze alloy, designed for various purposes like drawing sea water for fire fighting, air-conditioning, refrigeration, and drinking water systems. The appeal sought to deny the benefit of the Notifications based on these grounds. 4. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the pump was indeed designed for handling water, as admitted by the Revenue in their appeal grounds. The technical write-up supported the purpose of the pump for sea water handling. Therefore, the Tribunal found no substance in the Revenue's appeal and upheld the lower appellate authority's decision to grant the benefit under the Notifications. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld that the marine pump was primarily designed for handling water, as evidenced by the purpose it served on ships for various functions. The decision was based on the technical aspects and evidence presented, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal and the continuation of the benefit under the relevant Notifications for the respondents.
|
