2021 (12) TMI 240 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of benefit of notification no. 06/2011-CE dated 01/03/2011 - Concessional rate of duty - nickel perforated rotary screen classified under chapter heading 84405031 - HELD THAT - Admittedly, in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C, EX., VAPI VERSUS HARISH INDUSTRIES ENGINEERS 2008 (1) TMI 60 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD the dispute with regard to classification of product and in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR VERSUS M/S. MEWAR BARTAN NIRMAN UDYOG 2008 (9) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT , Hon ble Apex Court has clarified that while interpreting exemption notification, one cannot go by rules of interpretation applicable to cases of classification under the tariff. Therefore, the said decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C, EX., VAPI VERSUS HARISH INDUSTRIES ENGINEERS 2008 (1) TMI 60 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD is not applicable to the facts of the present case. We take a note of the fact that the appellant has classified the impugned goods under CTH 844250 which includes Plates,cylinders and other printing components; . The appellant is entitles for benefit of Sno. 41 in list 2 of notification no. 06/2011-CE dated 01/03/2011. Therefore, no demand is sustainable against the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of benefit under notification no. 06/2011-CE.

Analysis:
1. Facts and Background: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing machinery, sought benefit under notification no. 06/2011-CE from 01.03.2011, paying concessional duty at 5%. Disputes arose regarding the classification of their product, a nickel perforated rotary screen, under chapter heading 84405031.

2. Appellant's Arguments: The appellant contended that the department relied on a Tribunal decision inappropriately, emphasizing that the decision was related to classification, not the denial of notification benefits. Citing relevant case laws, the appellant argued that the product should be considered a part or component entitled to the notification's benefits.

3. Revenue's Stand: The Authorized Representative supported the impugned order, relying on Supreme Court decisions and the Tribunal's judgment to assert that the appellant's items were accessories, not parts or components specified in the notification.

4. Tribunal's Decision: After considering submissions and records, the Tribunal noted the undisputed classification of the product under chapter heading 844250. It highlighted that the dispute was not about classification but the denial of notification benefits. Referring to the notification's language, the Tribunal held that the appellant's product, being parts of textile printing machinery, was entitled to the notification's benefits under Sr. no. 41 in list 2 of notification no. 06/2011-CE dated 01/03/2011.

5. Conclusion: Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, ruling in favor of the appellant, and deemed no demand or penalty sustainable. The appeals were allowed with any necessary consequential relief.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the key aspects of the legal judgment, covering the issues raised, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's final decision, maintaining the essence and legal nuances of the original text.