2000 (3) TMI 730 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the capacitors manufactured by the appellants qualify as electronic capacitors for exemption under Notification No. 211/84.

Analysis:
The dispute in this case revolves around the classification of the capacitors manufactured by the appellants as electronic capacitors to avail exemption under Notification No. 211/84. The impugned order denied the exemption, confirmed the duty demand, and imposed a penalty based on the finding that the capacitors were not electronic in nature.

The appellants argued that the findings in the impugned order contradicted the evidence presented. They highlighted an expert opinion by Sh. V.M. Tagare, stating that the 12 micron M.P.P. film capacitors used by the appellants were indeed electronic capacitors. The Departmental Representative (DR) contended that Shri Tagare's opinion was not the sole evidence supporting the order, citing a statement by Shri D.V. Khadilkar, a Partner of the appellant, who claimed the capacitors were electrical grade.

The key expert opinion by Shri Tagare emphasized that the metalised polypropylene films used by the appellants in manufacturing capacitors were suitable for electronic capacitors. Shri Tagare's report clearly stated that these capacitors were electronic in nature as they produced electrons and were capable of functioning as such. The Tribunal disagreed with the impugned order's finding, emphasizing Shri Tagare's expert opinion over the statement by Shri D.V. Khadilkar, which the adjudicating authority had upheld despite the appellant's claim of it being recorded under duress.

The expert opinion confirmed that the appellants used raw materials specified for electronic capacitors under the notification. After examining the manufacturing process and materials used, the expert concluded that the appellants' product was indeed an electronic capacitor. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's argument that they rightfully availed the exemption and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief for the appellants.