Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Analogics Tech India Ltd vs Cce, Meerut-I on 16 January, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing/decision:16.01.2015
Appeals Nos. E/60233/2013, 226 & 2763/2012-EX
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.54/Commr/MRT-I/2013 dated 8.8.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Meerut].
M/s.Analogics Tech India Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Meerut-I Respondent
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Appearance: Rep. by Shri K. Anandh, AR for the appellant. Rep. by Shri Yashpal Sharma, DR for the respondent. Coram: Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial).
Final Order Nos.50234-50236/2015 Dated:16.01.2015 Per Rakesh Kumar:
The appellant in their manufacturing unit at Plot No.C-41, 42 & 43, Sigaddi Growth Centre (SIDCUL), Sigaddi, Kotdwar, Uttaranchal manufactures the electricity meter reading instruments for supply to the power distribution companies. The period of dispute is from April, 2011 to March, 2012. Initially, they manufactured the hand held devices for meter reading which could be carried by the employees of the Electric distribution company to the Consumers premises for meter reading, but subsequently they started manufacturing the remote controlled devices. There is no dispute that the Electric Meter Reading devices being manufactured by the appellant are classifiable under Heading no.8471 as data processing machines and that the same are covered by the exemption notification no.49/03-CE which the appellant were availing. The appellant for availing the exemption had dispatched the required declaration to the jurisdictional Superintendent , which was received by the Superintendent on 27.08.2009 and as such, there is no dispute about this fact. While initially, the jurisdictional Superintendent permitted the exemption from 27.08.2009, subsequently, the department was of the view that since in terms of the notification, the declaration is required to be sent to the jurisdictional Asstt/Dy. Commissioner also and since declaration has not been sent to the Asstt./Dy. Commissioner, the appellant would not be eligible for exemption. Another ground of denial of exemption is that in the declaration, while the appellant correctly mentioned the description of the devices, they mentioned its classification as 8517 5030 while there is no such Tariff Entry in the Central Excise Tariff, and on this basis, the department was of the view that the appellant would not be eligible for exemption. The appellants plea is that this Tariff Heading has been mentioned by mistake and that the goods being manufactured are classifiable under Heading No.8471 which are covered by exemption notification, but this plea of the appellant was not accepted by the department. It is on this basis that the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise by three separate orders confirmed the duty demands of Rs. 8,70,188/- and Rs. 53,17,153/- and Rs.1,44,55,836/- against the appellant along with interest thereon under Section 11 AB and imposed penalties of equal amount under Section 11AC. Against these orders of the Commissioner, these appeals have been filed.
2. Heard both the sides.
3. Both the sides agree that the goods manufactured by the appellant are the meter reading devices which would be classifiable as Data Processing Machine under Heading No.8471 of the Central Excise Tariff. There is no dispute that the appellants unit is located in the area notified in the notification no.49/2013-CE. The first ground for denial of exemption is that the copy of the declaration was sent only to the Superintendent and not the Assistant Commissioner. In our view, while for availing the exemption notification no.49/2003-CE and 50/2003-CE, filing of the declaration in prescribed format to Assistant/ Deputy Commissioner, with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise is mandatory and as the exemption is applicable only from the date of filing of the declaration, in our view, this condition for availing the exemption has been substantially complied with by the sending the declaration to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise about which there is no dispute. The jurisdictional Superintendent could have passed to the Assistant Commissioners office and just because the copy of the declaration was not sent by the assessee to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner, the exemption cannot be denied.
4. As regards the second objection that the Tariff Heading mentioned in the declaration is 85175030 while there is no such Tariff heading. In our view this is a clerical mistake as there is no dispute about the description and nature of the product being manufactured and on the basis of the description, the product would be classifiable as Data Processing Machine under Heading No.8474 which are covered by the exemption Notification No. 49 50/2003-CE. Just on account of some clerical mistake in mentioning of the sub-heading, the benefit of the exemption notification cannot be denied. In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders are not sustainable. The same are set aside. The appeals are allowed.
(Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) (S.K. Mohanty) Member (Judicial) Ckp.
2