2010 (10) TMI 1003 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against order confirming demand of duty u/s Notification 1/95-C.E. for procurement of mobile storage system.

Summary:
The appellant, a 100% EOU engaged in manufacturing cotton yarn, applied for a CT-3 certificate to procure a mobile storage system under Notification 1/95-C.E. The jurisdictional officer issued the certificate, and the goods were cleared by the manufacturer. A show cause notice alleged the system was like office furniture, not office equipment, denying the benefit of the notification. The original authority upheld the duty demand, which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The appellant argued that the system was classified by the manufacturer as office equipment and the attempt to re-classify after issuing the CT-3 certificate was unjustified. The respondent contended the system, placed on the floor, was not office equipment, citing precedents where similar items were classified as office furniture. Despite being a 100% EOU, the duty was demanded as office equipment was not covered by the exemption.

The Tribunal noted the exemption under Notification 1/95 is end-use based for goods supplied to a 100% EOU. The duty liability is determined at the time of removal from the manufacturing unit, and the classification is to be done by the officer-in-charge of that unit. The officer at the recipient unit cannot override the classification by the supplying unit's officer. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

*(Pronounced in Court)*