9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... designed for handling water”. The other notifications are similarly worded. The product literature produced by the appellant shows that the pumps in question are not exclusively designed for handling water as one the pumps are flame proof and other is used for liquid other than water also. The product literature also shows that these are cleared to various industrial consumers. The pumps in question cannot be said to be primarily designed for handling water. Hence the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of the Notifications in question which provide nil rate of duty in respect of the pumps which are primarily designed for handling water. - appellants filed classification lists on 1-3-1993, 1-4-1994 and 16-3-1995 and clearing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... February 1994 to 21-7-1996. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand by denying the benefit of the notifications. The assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the same. The appellant challenged the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the CESTAT vide order dated 21-9-2007 remanded the matter to the original authority. In pursuance to the remand order passed, the adjudicating authority again confirmed the demand by denying the benefit of the notifications. 4. The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order set aside the demand and held that the appellants are entitled for the benefit of the notifications ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he contention of the appellant is that as the appellants were clearing the P.D. Pumps in pursuance of the classification lists filed and duly approved therefore the allegation of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty is not sustainable. 9. On merits, the contention is that the Pumps model EM1AL and FM 1AL are primarily designed for handling water. However, these pumps can be used for handling other liquids also. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the pumps in question are not primarily designed for handling water. Hence the benefit is wrongly denied. 10. The Revenue relied upon the product literature produced by the appellant and submitted that Model No. EM1AL is capable of handling liquids other than water also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ps which are primarily designed for handling water. 13. In respect of limitation, we find that the appellants filed classification lists on 1-3-1993, 1-4-1994 and 16-3-1995 and clearing the pumps in question at nil rate of duty by claiming the benefit of Notifications. In view of this, the allegation of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty is not sustainable. Hence the demand beyond the normal period of limitation is not sustainable and set aside. 14. As the allegation of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty is not sustainable, therefore, as the appellants were clearing the pumps in question as per the classification lists filed by them, therefore, it is not a case for imposition of any penalty. Hence the penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
