9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... os. of Air Conditioners and 12 sets of computer peripherals. They availed 90% depreciation on computer peripherals and 60% depreciation on air conditioners. The respondent paid Rs. 26,432/- (BED Rs. 13,216/- & SED Rs. 13,216/-) as Central Excise Duty on the depreciated value of Rs. 82,600/- after claiming depreciation of 60% on the air conditioner. 2.1 It was contended that as per Annexure-I to Notification 1/95-C.E. dated 4-1-1995, air conditioners are not capital goods. A show cause notice was therefore issued to the respondent demanding Rs. 39,648/- as Excise Duty on short representation of assessable value of Rs. 1,23,900/-. The original authority, on adjudication, dropped the proceedings proposed in the show cause notice stating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue is resolved. 6. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice. 7. We find that the issue involved in this case is regarding whether the air conditioners imported as capital goods are eligible for grant of benefit under Notification No. 1/95-C.E. It is undisputed that the respondent is engaged in software development using computers. It is also undisputed that to do such an activity, the environment has to be controlled and conditioned and it can be created only by using air conditioners. We find that CBEC, vide Circular No. 289/5/97-CX, has clarified as under : Air conditioners - SSI exemption under Notification 1/95-C.E. Circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fications issued in this regard. 4. It has been decided by the Board that the instructions contained in aforesaid Customs Circular should be applied, mutatis mutandis, to Notification No. 1/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995. Accordingly, Board's letter of even no. dated 26-8-1996 is modified to this extent. 7.1 We also find that in another assessee's case, the learned Commissioner (A) vide his Order-in-Appeal No. 192/97 dated 28-5-1997 had granted the relief, which is not appealed against. In view of this settled position of the law, we find that the impugned order, which has upheld the Adjudicating Authority's order and rejected the department's appeal, is correct, legal and proper. 7.2 Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld as no in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
