2014 (11) TMI 698 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - Benefit of exemption under notification No. 16/2000-Cus (Serial No. 182) - exemption denied on the ground that the catalyst imported by the assessee is a chemical used in the process of manufacture of fertilizers and cannot be considered as machinery, instrument, apparatus and appliances or parts or raw materials for the manufacture of the aforesaid items - Held that - From a perusal of the notification it can be easily seen that what is exempted in the said notification are machinery, instruments, apparatus and appliances as well as parts or raw materials for the manufacture of the aforesaid items and parts required for renovation or modernization of the fertilizer plant. Further spare parts, raw materials or consumable stores essential for the maintenance of a fertilizer plant is also eligible for the exemption. The exemption is subject to the condition that an officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary has to certify that the scheme for renovation/modernization has been granted techno-economic clearance by the Department of Fertilizers and recommends in each case the grant of exemption to aforesaid goods and the goods are required for the specified purpose. Goods on which the exemption is claimed is a catalyst, which is a chemical. The catalyst is required for initiating a chemical reaction. It is not required for manufacture of machinery, instruments, equipment or appliances. It is after the manufacture of machinery, instruments, or appliances, the catalyst is charged into machinery for initiating the chemical reaction and therefore, the argument that catalyst is a machinery, instrument or appliance or a raw materials or part for the manufacture of the aforesaid items does not stand to any logic. that catalyst does not answer to the description of the goods eligible for the exemption. Merely, because an officer from the Department of Fertilizers has certified, catalyst cannot be considered as machinery, instrument or appliances or a part thereof. Certification from the Ministry is required only for the limited purpose of essentiality of the goods for purposes specified. Therefore, the order of the appellate authority allowing the exemption is clearly unsustainable in law and merits to be set aside. Consequently, the appellant RCF also would not be eligible for the refund of any duty paid in pursuance to the said decision in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner 1991 (8) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption eligibility of imported catalyst under notification No. 16/2000-Cus.
2. Interpretation of the exemption notification regarding machinery, instruments, apparatus, and appliances for renovation or modernization of a fertilizer plant.

Analysis:
1. The case involved two appeals - one by the Revenue against an order denying exemption to an importer for a catalyst used in fertilizer manufacturing, and the other by the importer against a refund claim rejection. The dispute centered on whether the catalyst qualified for exemption under notification No. 16/2000-Cus. The lower authorities had conflicting decisions on the matter, leading to the appeals being considered together for resolution.

2. The importer claimed exemption based on the catalyst's role in renovating or modernizing a fertilizer plant, supported by a certificate from a government officer. The Revenue contended that the catalyst, being a chemical for facilitating reactions, did not align with the exemption criteria for machinery or raw materials. The appellant cited a Bombay High Court case in their defense, emphasizing the certificate's significance.

3. The tribunal analyzed the exemption notification's language, which specified eligible items for exemption, including machinery, instruments, and raw materials for fertilizer plant renovation. The notification required certification by a Deputy Secretary to confirm the goods' necessity for the specified purpose. The tribunal highlighted the strict construction principle for exemption notifications, citing a Supreme Court ruling on interpretation.

4. Applying the strict construction rule, the tribunal concluded that the catalyst did not meet the exemption criteria as it was not integral to machinery or equipment manufacturing. The certification from the Department of Fertilizers only confirmed the goods' essentiality for the specified purpose, not their classification as exempt items. Consequently, the appellate authority's decision granting exemption was deemed legally unsustainable, leading to the Revenue's appeal success and the importer's appeal failure.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the Revenue's appeal, denying the importer's exemption claim for the catalyst and the subsequent refund request. The judgment clarified the strict interpretation required for exemption notifications, emphasizing the need for goods to align precisely with the specified criteria for eligibility.