Miss Lucy
← All judgments

M/S. M.M. Engineers Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal29 June 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an assessee claims exemption under Notification No. 10/97-CE dated 01.03.1997 for scientific and technical equipment supplied to specified atomic research institutions, and the assessee has produced the certificate of the competent authority (the Regional Director of BARC/CAT) certifying that the goods are cleared for research purposes after the notification's conditions are satisfied, the exemption is available and the demand fails. Where the Tribunal has previously decided the same issue between the same parties on an identical question of law and facts, following that earlier decision is the basis for allowing the appeal for a different (earlier) period, the earlier order being binding in the matter under consideration.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALSOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAIE/1143/2004

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.138/2004-CE, dated 06.04.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore]

M/s. M.M. ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. APPELLANT

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE RESPONDENT

Appearance:

For the Appellant Shri T. Ramesh, Adv.

For the Respondent Shri L. Paneerselvan, AC (AR)

CORAM:

Honbe Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member Honble Shri Pradeep Kumar Choudhary, Judicial Member

Date of hearing/decision 29-06-2015

FINAL ORDER NO.40714/2015

Per R. Periasami:

The appellant M/s. M.M. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. are manufacturers of cranes, hoists, lifting equipments and parts thereof falling under Chapter heading 8425.00, 8426.00, 8428.00 and 8431.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the year 1999-2000, the assessee have manufactured and cleared cranes, hoists lifting equipments etc., M/s. Centre for Atomic Research, Indore and BARC, Tarapore by availing exemption under Notification No.10/97, dated 01.03.1997. Notification No.10/97 exempts scientific and technical instruments, apparatus, equipments (including computers) supplied to the institutions specified in Col.2 of the table annexed to the notification, on satisfying the conditions specified at Co.l3 of the said table. The Adjudicating authority in his order at S.No.16/2001 (JC), dated 08.03.2001 dropped the proceedings initiated in the show-cause notice. Revenue preferred an appeal against the order and the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the Revenues appeal. Hence, the present appeal.

2. Learned counsel reiterates the findings at paras 10-11 of the Adjudication order dated 08.03.2001. He further submits that in terms of Notification No.10/97, dated 01.03.1997, the appellant produced a certificate from Regional Director of BARC/CAT certifying that the goods are cleared for research purposes, after satisfying the conditions, the Adjudicating authority has rightly allowed the benefit and dropped the demand proceedings. He further submits that on an identical issue, the issue has already been settled by this Tribunals judgment in the appellants own case vide Final Order No.664/12, dated 11.06.2012, wherein this Tribunal has dismissed the Revenues appeal.

3. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative reiterated the findings of the Order-in-Appeal.

4. After hearing both sides, we find that the Adjudicating authority in his order dated 08.03.2001examined the issues in detail and allowed the exemption under Notification No.10/07, as the appellant produced the relevant certificate from the Regional Director BARC/CAT. In the appellants own case, for the later period, on an identical issue, this Tribunal vide its order dated 11.062012 has held the decision in favour of the appellant. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below:-

We find that necessary certificates have been produced from Bhaba Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai and Centre for Advance Technology, Indore for claiming the duty exemption. We also note that in a number of cases a liberate view has been taken earier for grant of exemption under Notification No.10/97-CE, dated 01.03.1997 in respect of goods supplied for atomic research. Accordingly, we are of the view that since the required certificates from the competent authorities in the specified department have been produced for grant of duty exemption, the same should noted be denied. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the departments appeal is dismissed.

5. Since the issue in the present case is also identical to the above issue, in the appellants own case, for an earlier period 1999-2000, the impugned order is set aside by following the Tribunals judgment (supra) and allow the appeal.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(PRADEEP KUMAR CHOUDHARY) (R. PERIASAMI) JUDICIAL MEMBER TECHNICAL MEMBER

ksr 30-06-2015

DRAFT Remarks

I II III

Date of dictation 29.06.2015

Draft Order - Date of typing

Fair Order Typing .06.2015

Date of number and date of dispatch

5 E/1143/2004

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free