2000 (2) TMI 407 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 71/86-CE dated 10-2-1986 regarding the benefit availability to balances manufactured by M/s. Anamed Instruments Pvt. Ltd.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeals filed by Revenue revolve around the common issue of whether the benefit of Notification No. 71/86-CE is applicable to the balances manufactured by M/s. Anamed Instruments Pvt. Ltd. The Department of Legal Metrology opined that the balance should be classified based on its best sensitivity available, and the balance in question, with a sensitivity of 5mg or better, is covered by the notification. The Department emphasized strict construction of notification wordings and the inadmissibility of importing extraneous concepts to expand its scope.

The Revenue argued that the balances in question, having dual sensitivity at minimum and maximum weight levels, do not meet the conditions stipulated in the notification. They highlighted that the balances were tested by an institute which concluded that exemption under the notification would not apply to dual range sensitivity balances. The Revenue insisted on the principle of strict interpretation of notification wordings and the exclusion of extraneous concepts to extend its benefits.

The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of M/s. Anamed Instruments Pvt. Ltd., stating that the balances, despite having dual sensitivity, are eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 71/86. The Commissioner emphasized that the best sensitivity of the balances falls within the specified limits of the notification, thus making them eligible for the exemption.

The Tribunal remanded the matter to determine whether dual sensitivity range balances are covered by the notification based on trade practices and whether sensitivity should be considered from the angle of best sensitivity at the lower range or the worst sensitivity at the higher range. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the benefit of the notification to the product, considering the prices of balances dependent on the best sensitivity. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, citing the earlier reasoning provided by the Collector (Appeals).

The Tribunal rejected all three appeals filed by the Revenue, as the balances manufactured by M/s. Anamed Instruments Pvt. Ltd. met the sensitivity condition specified in the notification. The clarification from the Institute for Design of Electrical Measuring Instruments, supported by the Department of Legal Metrology, affirmed the eligibility of the balances for the notification's benefit, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeals.