2013 (10) TMI 497 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of Notification No. 6/2006 - The appellant is a manufacturer of water purification/filtration equipment Held that - There are two rates prescribed for the goods in the notification - The appellant chose the latter one and paid duty of 4% - Revenue has misread the notification and is trying to impose a condition, which does not exist - Serial No. 8-D of the notification no. 6/2008-CE as amended which prescribes a concessional rate of duty of 4% ad valorem on water filtration or water purification equipment - There is no dispute that the goods supplied by the appellant conform to this description - There is no condition prescribed against the Serial no. 8-D and in the condition column, the entry is blank thus the appellant is eligible for the concessional rate of duty of 4% without satisfying any condition Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification no. 6/2006-CE (Sl. No. 8-D) for concessional rate of duty on water purification/filtration equipment.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against Order-in-Appeal no. BR/156/TH-I/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. The appellant, a manufacturer of water purification/filtration equipment, was denied the benefit of a concessional rate of duty under Notification no. 6/2006-CE (Sl. No. 8-D) as they did not produce a certificate from the District Collector. A demand of Rs.32,47,188/- along with interest was confirmed against the appellant. The appellant contended that the notification prescribed two rates for the goods - a "Nil" rate subject to certification and a 4% rate without any condition. The appellant chose the latter and paid duty accordingly. The adjudicating authority misinterpreted the notification by trying to impose a non-existent condition, leading to the appeal.

The Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that the notification clearly provided for a concessional rate of 4% without any conditions attached. The appellant complied with this rate and paid duty accordingly. The Revenue, represented by the ld. Additional Commissioner (AR), supported the lower appellate authority's findings. The Tribunal, after considering both sides' submissions, analyzed Serial no. 8-D of the notification, which prescribed a 4% ad valorem rate on water filtration or purification equipment without any conditions attached. Since the goods supplied by the appellant fell within this description and no conditions were specified against Serial no. 8-D, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was eligible for the concessional rate of duty without satisfying any additional conditions.

Consequently, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant on merits and allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order. The stay application was also disposed of in light of the judgment.