2013 (10) TMI 731 - AT - Customs

Stay Application - Electronic paver finisher - matter referred to larger bench with the following question Whether the machine imported by the respondents i.e. Electronic Sensor Pavers Vogele - Model Super 1800-2 with AB 600-2 TV Screed of working width upto 9.5 meters for laying Bituminous Pavement is entitled for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002, Sr. No. 230 (Sl. No.2 of List 18) or not.

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Notification No.21/2002 for exemption of Electronic Sensor Pavers under List 18, Item No.2 - Discrepancy in width versus pavement laying capacity.

Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case: The respondents imported Electronic Sensor Pavers for laying Bituminous Pavement and claimed exemption under Notification No.21/2002. The adjudicating authority denied the benefit based on the machine's width being below 7 meters. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the exemption as the machines could lay pavements up to 10 meters, contrary to the adjudicating authority's decision.

2. Arguments by Revenue: The Revenue contended that machines with a width of 6 meters are not entitled to exemption under the Notification, citing a similar case involving M/s Gammon India Ltd. The Revenue sought to set aside the Commissioner's decision and allow their appeals.

3. Counter-arguments by Respondents: The advocates representing the respondents argued that the focus should be on the machine's capacity to lay pavements of 7 meters and above, not just its width. They emphasized that the Tribunal had not correctly interpreted the relevant provision and requested the matter to be referred to a Larger Bench for clarity.

4. Tribunal's Decision: After considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal declined to stay the operation of the impugned orders. Upon reviewing the exemption Notification, the Tribunal noted that the provision applied to Electronic paver finishers for laying bituminous pavement 7 meters and above. The Tribunal concluded that the respondents' machines, capable of laying pavements up to 10 meters, were entitled to the benefit under the Notification.

5. Referral to Larger Bench: Due to a conflicting view from a Coordinate Bench in a previous case, the Tribunal decided to refer the matter to a Larger Bench. The Tribunal directed the Registry to present the case before the Hon'ble President for the Larger Bench to decide whether the Electronic Sensor Pavers imported by the respondents qualified for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of the machine's capacity to lay pavements of specified sizes, rather than solely focusing on its width, in determining eligibility for exemption under the relevant Notification. The matter was referred to a Larger Bench for a comprehensive decision, considering the differing interpretations presented in the case at hand and previous judgments.