1996 (8) TMI 328 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Applicability of exemption Notification No. 82/72-C.E. to electric motors marked with voltage 380 and 385.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, raised the issue of whether the electric motors marked with voltages of 380 and 385 were eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 82/72-C.E., dated 17-3-1972. The Department contended that the motors did not meet the criteria specified in the notification, which required the motors to be designed for use in circuits at a pressure exceeding 400 volts.

The respondent argued that the motors in question were specifically designed for use in circuits at 380 and 385 volts, falling short of the 400-volt threshold mentioned in the exemption notification. The respondent emphasized that the tolerance provided in ISI specifications was for testing purposes and did not alter the voltage design of the motors for the purpose of interpreting the exemption notification.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that the exemption under Notification No. 82/72-C.E. was applicable only to electric motors designed for circuits exceeding 400 volts. The appellants had initially paid normal duty and only claimed the benefit of the notification after an amendment in 1977 changed the rated capacity criteria. The amendment did not affect the voltage requirement specified in the original notification.

The Tribunal observed that the actual markings on the motors indicated voltages of 380 and 385 volts, with no evidence presented to demonstrate that these motors were designed for circuits exceeding 400 volts. The Asstt. Collector and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) found that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim for concessional duty under the notification.

Considering the factual circumstances of the case, the Tribunal concluded that the benefit of the exemption notification was not applicable to the electric motors marked with 380 and 385 volts. Consequently, the appeal was rejected based on the lack of evidence supporting the eligibility for the exemption.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision to deny the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 82/72-C.E. to the appellant, based on the specific voltage design requirements outlined in the notification and the absence of evidence demonstrating compliance with the criteria for concessional duty.