Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Larsen & Toubro Limited vs Cce, Delhi Iv, Faridabad on 30 March, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. II DATE OF HEARING : 30/03/10. Excise Appeal No. 1716 of 2005 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 10/CE/APPL/DLH-IV/2005 dated 21/02/2005 passed by The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.] M/s Larsen & Toubro Limited Appellant Versus CCE, Delhi IV, Faridabad Respondent Appearance None for the appellant. Shri B.K. Singh, Authorized Representative (Jt. CDR) for the Respondent. CORAM : Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member Order No. ________________ Dated : ,,,,,,,,,,,_____________ ORDER
Per. D.N. Panda :-
The appellant is absent today. Notice has gone in this case on 5th March 2010 fixing the hearing on 30th March 2010. There is also no adjournment application. Therefore, we are compelled to hear revenue for the reason that the appellant is enjoying the interim order dated 05/09/2005 extended from time to time and last such order was passed on 10/04/2006. We are unable to find any further extension of the stay order thereafter granting interim relief to the appellant. Observing that revenue shall be prejudiced if the matter is kept pending, we have taken up the appeal for disposal.
2. Learned Jt. CDR brings out that when a Notification grants exemption for particular category of goods, such category cannot be mis-constituted to include any other category into the exempted category. According to him Revenues case is clear that only non-conventional energy devices/systems specified in list 9 (in relation to Sl. No. 237 of the Table) of the Notification No. 6/2002 dated 1/3/02 is only exempt from levy of duty. The description and nature of goods cleared by the appellant is coming out from page 1 of the Appellate Order describing the goods as not complete devices which could produce energy independently and the Appellant had cleared low tension switch board and parts thereof falling under Chapter Heading 8537.00 and 8538.00 respectively. Those were not the goods specified for notificational benefit of duty exemption. Such a fact remains undisputed all along. The appellants plea was merely that the goods cleared by them falling under the chapter said above are tailor-made product. This shall not be called as devises/systems generating non-conventional energy. When revenue did not find inherent capability of the goods to serve the purpose of notification independently without being associated are used with a primarily device, the appellant was rightly denied exemption. Therefore, there is no case for the appellant even today to argue when ground no. 2 of the appeal memo is looked into. In the entire grounds of appeal, the appellant has not brought out how the goods cleared by them serve the purpose device/system for generation of non-conventional energy. Therefore, the concrete finding and conclusions of both the authorities below deserve to be sustained.
3. In absence of the appellant, we are conscious that the appellant may suffer if the appellant does not get the opportunity of hearing. But, we are helpless when the appellant has no regard to the process of law when notice has been served asking to appear on 30th March 2010. No adjournment application has come to record today. Also noticing that there is no stay order operating after 10/04/06, we are not inclined to keep the matter pending since the matter has been rolling on from 2005 for hearing. Therefore, we made a thorough inquiry from the learned Jt. CDR about the very cause of the dispute in this appeal. He has brought to our notice that the goods were cleared as aforesaid which is not entitled to exemption as revealed from brief facts of the case. That does not demonstrate to be non-conventional energy devices/systems specified in list 9 appended to the Notification. Treating the goods cleared as aforesaid as devise/system shall defeat the object of intent and purpose of the Notification since such goods are not demonstrated by any of the documents on record to fall under Sl. No. 237 of the impugned Notification relied upon by the assessee. Once the goods independently fail to prove as devise or systems that calls for denial of exemption. Pleadings of the appellant before the learned authorities below no where proved the goods were cleared to be system or device as envisaged by the Notification. Once the goods fail to prove their own standing, the appellant should not get the benefit of the impugned Notification. In view of above discussion, concurrent finding of the Authorities below does not call for disturbance. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. Panda) Judicial Member (Rakesh Kumar) Technical Member PK