Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1997 (10) TMI 265

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gned order are reproduced below :- 2. The facts in brief are that the appellants who inter alia manufacture `Water Purifier falling under Heading 8421.00 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 were found to have cleared the said goods at `NIL rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 155/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 upto 28-2-1993 and in terms of Notification No. 54/93, dated 28-2-1993 thereafter. Upon consideration of their claim for exemption it was observed that the said two Notifications prescribed `NIL rate of duty only for `Water Filters of a capacity not exceeding 40 litres, and therefore, it was prima facie felt that `on line water purifier manufactured by the appellant would not qualify for the benefit. Therefore .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tedly water purifier manufactured by the appellant is attached to the water pipe line as an on the line device for a continuous process of purification of water with an infinite capacity. But according to the Notification the exemption would be available only to these water filters of a specified capacity of not exceeding 40 litres. Therefore, in my considered view the said description would cover only those water filters with two containers one for holding the water to be purified and another for holding the purified filtered water. In view of the capacity of the water filter specifically prescribed in the notifications themselves, I am unable to accept the plea of the appellant that the product in question would qualify for the benefit on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lude milk powder and the Hon ble Bombay High Court held that powdered milk will be covered by the term milk. He has pleaded that the appellants water purifier continues to be a water filter and therefore, the benefit of exemption should be allowed. He has pleaded that the appellants water filter was an improved version of water filter technology. At the time when the Notification was issued, the concession was given only to such of those known type of filters having water storage facility. He has pleaded that the object was to extend the benefit to all sorts of filters which are used for domestic purposes. In this connection he has cited the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd. reported i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and since the appellants product was also for that purpose and therefore, the benefit should have been given to the appellants. 4. Shri S. Arulsamy, the learned DR for the department has pleaded that exemption has been given with reference to the storage capacity of the water filter and therefore exemption can be taken to be available in respect of storage type water filter only where water can be put in the filter and the filtered water can be stored and drawn at convenience. He has pleaded that the appellants item was a continuous flow type filter which has no storage facility at all. Therefore, based on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court cited by the learned Counsel the item of the appellants cannot be covered by the wording .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... olding capacity and the maximum capacity, and the charcoal powder which is an impregnated silver is the filtering medium. It is not the appellants case that the carbon which is used for filtering the water is the same type as the storage type filter to bring their product near the storage type filter. Further the capacity of the appellants product is being maximum 6.5 litres per minute the parameter of the capacity in the Notification cannot be satisfied by very nature of the filtering methodology adopted for filteration. The judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court cited by the appellants cannot help them inasmuch the appellants at the threshold stand excluded by the nature of filter being different from what is envisaged in the Notificat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates