9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplied to M/s. Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre and National Institute of Oceanography. Revenue proceeded against the appellants for demand of duty on the ground that the goods cleared are not entitled for the said exemption. It is the contention of the Revenue that the impugned goods cannot be considered as Scientific and Technical Instrument or Apparatus or Equipment or Accessories or Spare parts for instruments, apparatus and equipment. Hence, the lower authority confirmed the demand and imposed equal penalty under Section 11AC. Further, he demanded interest under Section 11AB. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the lower authority in the impugned OIA. The appellants strongly challenge the impugned order. 3. Shri K.K. V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as Accessory against description furnished in 2 (b) of column No. 3 of the table annexed to the Notification. (iv) The Computer workstations and computer furnitures supplied by the appellants are squarely covered under Accessories to computers. The research work depends on the skills and efficiency of human beings and providing computer furniture is vital for better. results. The furnitures are designed for workstations specifically and scientifically to work long stretch without any hindrance and to avoid strain on spinal cord of human body. (v) It is held in the following cases that when an exemption is subject to the production of a certificate from the specified authorities in the Notification, it should be given credence because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Padmini Products Vs. CCL - 1989 (43) ELT 195 (SC) (ii) . Lubri-Chem Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bombay - 1994 (4) RLT 239 (SC)=1994 (73) ELT 257 (SC) (iii) Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company Vs. CCE - 1995 (78) ELT 401 (S C) (iv) CC, Bombay vs. Unitech Exports Ltd. - 1999 (31) RLT 552 (CEGAT) =1999 (108) ELT 462 (Tribunal) 5. The learned JDR submitted that these items are only meant for visitors and by no stretch of imagination, they can be called as accessories to scientific equipment, apparatus meant for research, etc. 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The issue is with regard to entitlement of exemption Notification 10/97-CE dated 1.3.1997 in respect of certain furniture supplied to M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erusal of the list shows that the items of furniture are specially designed for the laboratory. For a clearer understanding we are giving the list. 1. Island Table with Reagent Shelves 2. Reagent Shelves 3. Tables 4. Straight Work top with CPU holder and drawer unit 5. L-shaped work top with CPU holder and drawer unit for HOS, etc. It is seen that all these items are modular furniture specially designed for the laboratory. It can be seen that the Notification gives exemption not only for the scientific equipments but also fur the accessories. The question is whether the impugned goods can be considered as accessories or not. 6.2 The definition of accessory as given in The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary is "an extra piece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... musculoskeletal disorders." 6.4 Keeping in view the fact that human beings have to interact with the elements of system in work place, even the furniture meant for research purposes are designed ergonomically. In that sense, these furniture are required for the research purpose as certified by the Competent Authority. Hence, when the notification gives exemption for accessories also, a broader interpretation should be given to it to include the modular furniture specially designed. We agree with the learned Consultant that the Apex Court's decision cited by the Adjudicating Authority relates to 100% EOU in the context of Notification 123/81. The facts are quite different in that Notification and they are distinguishable from the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
