2012 (9) TMI 492 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. - in respect High Alumina Refractory Cement Clinker, Mineral Substances not elsewhere specified etc. Original authority denied the exemption on the ground that the said notification exempts capital goods used within the factory of production and meaning of the term the capital goods shall be as in Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Held that - Appellants are claiming the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. in respect of impugned materials. The burden to prove that the impugned items fall under the scope of exemption notification is squarely on the assessee - appellants have failed to prove that the impugned items fall under the scope of the notification against assessee

Summary

Issues:
Claim of benefit under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. for specific items. Denial of exemption by original authority. Interpretation of capital goods under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Applicability of exemption to refractory goods.

Analysis:
The appellant claimed benefit under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. for various items falling under different chapters. The original authority denied the exemption, stating that the notification exempts capital goods used within the factory of production as per Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The denial was based on the items not being considered refractories falling under Chapter 69 or parts of machinery. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision.

The appellant argued that the refractory goods were essential components of the kiln, necessary for its functioning at high temperatures. They relied on a Tribunal decision to support their claim. The DR supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).

The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and the records. The burden of proof to show that the items fell under the exemption notification rested on the appellant. The appellant did not claim that the items fell under Chapter 69 but argued they were parts of machinery, qualifying as capital goods under Rule 57Q. However, they failed to identify the specific machinery to support this claim.

The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim based on Rule 57Q's definition of capital goods, which did not cover the items in question. The order allowed exemption for refractory items falling under Chapter 69 but rejected it for the other items. The Tribunal found no valid reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) decision as the appellant failed to prove the items' eligibility for exemption.

Ultimately, the appeal was rejected, affirming the denial of exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. for the disputed items.