9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll 16.03.2012 and @12% from 17.03.2012 onwards. The appellant had vide letter dated 13.04.2011 intimated the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner that in the light of amendment of Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 by Notification No. 6/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011, the aforesaid commodity had been added under item 41 in List II of Notification No. 6/2006-CE as parts or components of the machinery specified at items No. 1 to 40 above. The rotary/ flat bed screen printing machines were specified at Sr. No. 26 of the said list, that the cylinders manufactured by them are used in the said rotary/ flat bed screen printing machines. That their cylinders have designs inscribed on them and when the cylinders were mounted on the machine, prin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n No. 18/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 even though the product was rejected to be considered as accessories of the machinery attracting excise duty @10% upto 16.03.2012 and @12% from 17.03.2012 onwards. 2. The appellant was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 18.01.2013 proposing recovery of duty amounting to Rs. 37,47,034/- under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It also proposes as to why the claim of protest not vacated and the duty amount of Rs. 37,47,034/- paid under protest by them on removal of goods "Nickel Perforated Rotary Screen" should not be adjusted/ appropriated against the above said demand in view of wrong availment of benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 as amended vide Notification No. 6/2011-CE d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi vs Harish Industries Engineers 2008 (223) ELT 651 (Tri. Amd.). 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. 6. We find that in the present case, the limited issue to be decided by us is that whether the appellant's products, namely, 'Perforated Nickel Cylinders (Screen)' is eligible for concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 6/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011 or otherwise. We find that the very same issue has been decided by this Tribunal vide Order No. A/12556-12557/2021 dated 30.11.2021 in the matter of Stovec Industries Limited. The relevant order is reproduced below: "2. The facts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T651(Tri- Ahd.) holding that the nickel perforated screen is an accessory and the same is not part or the component of the machinery specified at item no. 1-40 of the said notification in list 2. Aggrieved from the said orders, appellant is before us. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the whole case of the department is based on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Harish Industries Engineers (supra) to say that the above said machine cleared by the appellant are accessories and not a part or component. It is his contention that in the case of Harish Industries Engineers, the issue before this Tribunal was of classification. Therefore, the said decision cannot be relied upon to deny the benefit of the notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ariff heading is extracted below: 8442 Machinery apparatus and equipment (other than the machine tools of headings 8456 to 8465) for preparing or making plates, printing components; plates, cylinders and lithographic stones, prepared for printing purposes (for example, planed, grined or polished.) 844230 - Machinery, apparatus and equipment: 8442 30 10 --- Brass rules........................................................................... u 12% 8442 30 20 ---Chases.................................................................................. u 12% 8442 30 90 ---Other.................................................................................... u 12% 8442 40 00 - Parts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spute with regard to classification of product and in the case of Mewar Bartan Nirman Udyog (supra) 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 Harish Industries Engineers(supra) 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 said classification has not been disputed by the Revenue. In the circumstances while giving benefit of notification no. 06/11-CE dated 01/03/2011 in list 2 Sr. no. 41 which re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
