Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S Super Pumps Pvt. Limited vs Cce, Bhopal on 23 August, 2016

        

 
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

West Block No.2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi, Court No. 1



Date of hearing: 18.08.2016

Date of decision:     23.08.2016



For Approval and Signature:



Honble  Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President

Honble Mr. B. Ravichandran,  Member (Technical)



1
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
  No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
 No
3
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen 
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
 Yes
Excise  Appeal No. 2206 of 2009



(Arising out of order-in-appeal No. 194/BPL/2009 dated 28.04.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Customs &  Central Excise,  Bhopal).



M/s Super Pumps Pvt. Limited				Appellant



Vs.



CCE, Bhopal							Respondent

Appearance:

Sh. Z. U. Alvi, Advocate for the appellant Sh. G. R. Singh, DR for the Respondent Coram:
Honble Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President Honble Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 53158 / 2016 Per: B. Ravichandran:
The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of submersible pumps liable to Central Excise duty. They were availing small scale exemption in terms of Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. They have filed a refund claim of Rs. 1,15,933/- on the ground that they have paid, by mistake, Central Excise duty by including non ISI submersible pumps in the overall turnover. In other words, the appellant submitted that SSI Notification No. 8/2003-CE is not applicable to non BIS pumps and as such the clearance value of such pumps are not to be taken while determining the aggregate value of first clearance of Rs. 150 lakhs. The claim was rejected by the original authority and on appeal the rejection was upheld by the appellate authority.

2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that Notification No. 8/2003-CE is a SSI notification. The relevant entry in the annexure clearly stipulates that the said exemption is not applicable to the power driven pumps which do not conform to BIS. The appellant manufacture pumps as per BIS as well as pumps not conforming to BIS. As such when the notification was not applicable to non BIS pumps the turnover has to be arrived at for the goods covered by the notification only.

3. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records.

4. We find that the notification is available to all goods of Chapter 84 except power driven pumps not conforming to BIS standards. We note that for the purpose of determining the first clearances upto an aggregate value not existing Rs. 150 lakhs the goods covered by the said notification only can be considered. Since non BIS pumps are not covered by the notification and the appellants submitted that they are clearing the same on payment of duty, the turnover of the same is not to be considered for arriving at the threshold exemption limit. A combined reading of para 1, table and annexure to the notification brings out that for calculating aggregate value of turnover excisable goods of the description specified in the Annexure appended to the notification is to be considered. Accordingly, we allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any. (Pronounced on 23.08.2016).

(Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra) President (B. Ravichandran) Member (Technical) Pant