1997 (7) TMI 260 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Sprinkler Equipment manufactured by the appellants qualifies as an Agricultural Implement for exemption under Notification No. 64/86-C.E. from 1-3-1986 to 28-2-1988.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of Sprinkler Equipment manufactured by M/s. Mahavir Aluminium Limited as an Agricultural Implement for exemption under Notification No. 64/86-C.E. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, held that the product did not qualify as an Agricultural Implement based on the components and dictionary meaning of "Implement." The Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi, affirmed this decision, noting that the goods were not specified as per ISI standards for agricultural use and were separately exempted post-1-3-1988. The Collector upheld the denial of exemption under Notification No. 64/86 for the relevant period.

The appellant argued that the Sprinkler Irrigation System was intended for agricultural use and qualified as an implement under the relevant notifications. They referenced trade notices and expert opinions supporting their classification. However, the respondent contended that the exemption under Notification No. 64/86-C.E. was limited to agricultural implements and parts thereof, which did not encompass the Sprinkler Equipment in question. The respondent highlighted the composition of the system and previous judicial interpretations of agricultural implements.

The Tribunal considered the definitions of "implement" and previous case law on the term in sales tax matters. While acknowledging the appellant's arguments and expert opinions, the Tribunal found that the Sprinkler Equipment did not align with the concept of agricultural implements pre-1-3-1988. The scope of exemption was extended to mechanical appliances for agriculture post-1-3-1988, but the Tribunal upheld the decision that the Sprinkler Equipment did not qualify as an implement under the earlier notification. Consequently, the appeal was rejected based on the lack of alignment with the exemption criteria under Notification No. 64/86-C.E. during the relevant period.