Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Commnr. Of Central Excise, Chennai vs M/S. Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. on 15 April, 2015
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Rohinton Fali Nariman
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5902 OF 2004
Commnr. Of Central Excise, Chennai Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/s. Andrew Yule & Co.Ltd. Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7090-7091 OF 2009
O R D E R
Having regard to the nature of the order we propose to pass, we do not think that it is necessary to recapitulate the factual matrix in detail. Our purpose would be served by mentioning that the respondents in these appeals have been supplying power transformers to certain institutes which are ITIs, Universities, National Laboratories, etc. The question is as to whether these equipments supplied by the respondents are covered by Notification No.10/97 CE dated 1.3.1997. The said Notification exempts the supply of equipments to certain types of institutions from payment of Central Excise in case the conditions mentioned in the Signature Not Verified Notification are fulfilled.
Digitally signed bySuman Wadhwa Date: 2015.04.20 16:19:13 IST Reason:
The Notification contains a table which has a column 2 specifying the names of the institutions to which such goods are to be supplied. These institutions are mentioned in column No.3. Likewise, the description of goods is stated in Column No.4 which mentions the conditions to be satisfied deals about required certificates etc. that are to be produced from the concerned authorities as well as aggregate value of the prototypes received by the institutions. The equipments so supplied may be to research institutions or universities, etc. for research purposes as well as non commercial research purposes.
It is not in dispute that the respondents have supplied the concerned goods to those very institutions which are mentioned in column 2. The conditions specified in column No.4 have also been fulfilled by the respondents. However, entire dispute is about the description of goods. To put it in nutshell, the requirement is that the goods should be meant for the use of research by scientific and technical institutions.
The Order-in-Original passed by the Assessing Authority, refusing to give the benefit of the aforesaid Notification to the respondents, took the view that the conditions mentioned in column 3 are not fulfilled in the instant case. The relevant portion of the said order passed in C.A. No. 7090/99 reads as under:
3
“It is perhaps relevant to mention here that exemption in the said notification is not solely based on certificate here that exemption in the said notification is not solely based on certificate of the institutions. Had this been so, there was no need of column (3) i.e. description of goods, in the notification. From a plain reading of the Notification, it cold be seen that only those goods which are specified in column (3) of the table are exempted. If goods which are not covered in the description as specified in column (3) of the table to the Notification, then they are not exempted. Just a certificate from a Department does not entitle the assessee to clear the goods without payment of duty as the goods have to meet the description of goods specified in column (3) of the table to the Notification.” It is the aforesaid reason given by the adjudicating authority which is the subject matter of the dispute. We may mention here that the respondents had not produced any material to show that the goods supplied in question that the transformers were for scientific and technical purposes.
Mr. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, intends to rely upon some material, which she submits has been downloaded from the web sites of the IITs, Universities, etc. to whom the goods were supplied, in order to demonstrate that the goods supplied were meant for research. Since this material was not produced before the commissioner, he did not have any occasion to verify the same or to consider the effect thereof. We are, thus, of the opinion that it would be 4 appropriate to remand the case back to the adjudicating authority to discuss the aforesaid issue in the light of the material that is sought to be produced by the respondents.
We, accordingly, set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and refer the matter to the adjudicating authority to consider the issue afresh after giving opportunity to the respondents to place the material before him. The respondents shall also be accorded personal hearing, if they so desired. Another issue relating to manufacture which arises in the C.A.No. 7090/99, is not gone into by us on merit and it will be open to the Department to raise that issue also before the appropriate forum.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
….....................J. (A.K.SIKRI) …......................J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) New Delhi;
Date: 15.4.2015.5
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.13 SECTION III
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 5902/2004
COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S. ANDREW YULE & CO. LTD. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for revocation and office report) WITH C.A. No. 7090-7091/2009 (With appln. For c/d in filing rejoinder affidavit and c/d in filing appeal) Date : 15/04/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Jaydeep Gupta,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Arijit Prasad,Adv.
Mr. T.M.Singh,Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Meenakshi Arora,Sr.Adv.
Ms. Ritika,Adv.
Mr. S. Rajappa,Adv.
Mr. Jitendra Singh,Adv. Ms. Rashmi Singh,Adv.for M/s. Ap & J Chambers,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(SUMAN WADHWA) (SUMAN JAIN)
AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER
Signed order is placed on the file.