2014 (12) TMI 576 - AT - Customs

CVD Exemption - import of goods used for manufacture of Rotor Blades - Sl.No.237A of Notification No.6/2002-CE dt.1.3.2002 as amended - Goods not classifiable under Chapter heading specified in the said notification - Held that - As per the rules of interpretation, first any imported goods are to be correctly classified as per the description provided in the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. The classification of goods precedes over the determination of rate of duty or any exemption applicable to the said product. Only after classifying the goods into correct chapter headings, under respective chapter of CTA or CETA, the question of extending of notification benefit or rate of duty to be finalised and not vice versa Exemption is extended to the excisable goods of the description specified in table read with concerned list appended and falling within chapter, heading number or sub heading number of the First Schedule to the CETA 1985 specified in the corresponding entry in Column No.2 of the said table. Therefore exemption available subject to fulfillment of the criteria given in the notification viz. (1) goods should be conforming to the description given in the Table of the notification (2) the goods must fall under the heading or sub heading of the first Schedule of the CETA. From the plain reading of the said exemption notification, we find that if the goods do not fall under any heading or sub heading or under 8 digit tariff heading but only fall under the description, then they would not be covered by the notification. Non-submission of the essentiality certificate - The condition in the customs notification and the excise notification are independent and the exemption benefit also are independent of each other. Non-submission of the essentiality certificate is sufficient evidence to hold that appellants have not fulfilled the conditions of notification. Therefore, lower authorities have rightly denied on this ground by relying the Tribunal decision in the case of Airport Authority of India Vs CCE (2004 (11) TMI 378 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI). Adjudicating authority has rightly classified the imported goods under chapter sub-heading as explained at Table-III above and denied CVD exemption. Commissioner (Appeals) also dealt with the issue in detail in the impugned order. By respectfully following the Supreme Court decision (1994 (9) TMI 67 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and the Tribunal s decision on the issue (2004 (11) TMI 378 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) therefore we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods.
2. Eligibility for CVD exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE as amended by Notification No.29/2005-CE.
3. Submission of essentiality certificate for availing exemption.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Goods:
The appellants imported various types of resins for manufacturing rotor blades for wind-operated electricity generators (WOEG) and claimed CVD exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE as amended by Notification No.29/2005-CE. The goods included Crystic (Gelcoat), Polylite (Infusion resin), and Polylite (Hand lay up resin), all classified by the appellants under specific 8-digit chapter headings. The Revenue reclassified these goods under different 8-digit chapter headings, asserting that the imported goods did not fall under the specified chapter headings in the notification. The adjudicating authority confirmed the reclassification based on the technical literature provided by the appellants, which described the chemical nature and bonding of the resins, distinguishing between polyester resins and the specified epoxy resins in the notification.

2. Eligibility for CVD Exemption:
The appellants argued that the imported goods conformed to the description in the exemption notification and should be eligible for CVD exemption. They contended that the government's intention was to exempt such goods used in the manufacture of rotor blades for WOEG. However, the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the goods must meet both the description and the specified 8-digit tariff headings in the notification. The Supreme Court's judgments in similar cases emphasized strict interpretation of exemption notifications, requiring goods to fall under the specified chapter headings to qualify for exemption. The Tribunal upheld that the imported goods did not meet the 8-digit tariff classification specified in the notification, thus denying the exemption.

3. Submission of Essentiality Certificate:
The appellants did not submit the essentiality certificate required under Notification No.6/2002-CE as amended. They argued that the certificate issued by the Ministry of Non-conventional Energy Sources (MNES) for Customs Notification 21/2002 should suffice. However, the Tribunal found that the conditions in the customs and excise notifications are independent, and the essentiality certificate prescribed in the excise notification must be submitted to claim the exemption. The non-submission of this certificate was a valid ground for denying the exemption, as supported by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Airport Authority of India Vs CCE.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the reclassification of the imported goods by the adjudicating authority and denied the CVD exemption, citing strict interpretation of the exemption notification and the necessity of fulfilling all specified conditions, including the submission of the essentiality certificate. The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed.