Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Spectrum Infotech Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 18 February, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
BANGALORE
Appeal(s) Involved:
E/876/2009-DB, E/26888/2013-DB, E/26889/2013-DB, E/1069/2009-DB
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 143 &144/2013 dated 20/03/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise
(Appeals-I) BANGALORE]
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 09 & 10/2009 dated 09/07/2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, BANGALORE]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K. ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
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?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
Spectrum Infotech Pvt Ltd
No 145/2. II Floor, Komarla Solitaire,
Old Madras Road, C.V.Raman Nagar
BANGALORE,
KARNATAKA - 560093
Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-I
POST BOX NO 5400...CR BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE, - 560001
KARNATAKA
Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Prakash Shah, Adv For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, A.R. For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 18/02/2016 Date of Decision: 18/02/2016 CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K. ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20280-20283 / 2016 Per : ASHOK K. ARYA Both sides have been heard in detail.
2. The matter concerns with the benefit of Notification No 10/97-CE dated 1.3.1997 to the items in question namely: i) Screened Conduction Cooled Video Cards for OAC (Open Architecture Computers); ii) Environment Control and Fuel Management Electronic unit; iii) Cockpit Interface Unit to Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA); iv) Automated Test Equipment (ATE) for Compact Electronic Unit (CEU) to Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE); and v) Hardware Simulator to Laser Science & Technology Centre (LASTEC).
We find that the lower authorities state that items in question were specifically manufactured as per the specifications and diagrams furnished by Aeronautical Development Agency, who are a part of the Ministry of Defence. Lower authorities further inter alia state that such parts/items were specifically shown in the catalogue which says as aircraft parts and were understood as such in aviation circles; admittedly the said goods have their usage in the cockpit of Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). Such goods in commercial parlance are known as parts of aircraft. Lower authorities have concluded that consequently these items cannot fit in the description of the goods given in Column-3 of the table attached to the Notification 10/97 CE dated 01.03.1997; therefore they are not covered by the description of the Goods (a&b) of Column-3 of the table attached to the Notification and would not be eligible to the benefit of the Notification No. 10/97.
3. Learned advocate for the appellants argues that they have fulfilled all the conditions of the Notification and these fives items certainly fit in the description of the goods given in column 3 (a&b) attached to the Notification 10/97 CE dated 01.03.1997. He further submits that three items supplied to ADA are for LCA (Light Combat Aircraft) project of the Defence Ministry and remaining items are for other defence projects supplied to other Defence Institutions. He also points out that the conditions mentioned in Column 4 of the table attached to the Notification 10/97 CE have been fulfilled and the officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Govt of India in the respective department has certified that the institutions to which they are supplied are publicly owned institutions and the goods supplied are required for research purposes only.
4. Learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue vehemently argues that these items cannot be included in column 3 of the table attached to the Notification No 10/97 (supra). He cites in support Honble Supreme Courts decision in the case of CCE Chennai Vs Andrew Yule & Co Ltd [2015(319)ELT 232 (SC)]. He submits that where assessing authority has given clear-cut finding that conditions mentioned in Column-3 are not fulfilled by the items, the subject goods would not be entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 10/97.
5. We have perused the full facts on record and also the submissions of both sides. We find that lower authorities have not applied their mind carefully. It is very much obvious that items in question are meant for research projects. There has been specific certificate issued by an authority not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Govt of India certifying that the said goods mentioned under scientific and technical description therein are meant for research purposes only as a condition mentioned in Column 4 of the table attached to the Notification No. 10/97CE dated 10.3.1997. We are not able to get convinced that the goods in question if they are in common and commercial parlance known as part(s) of aircraft or parts of some other equipment and have been supplied in commercial quantity, why they cannot be used for research purposes; whether the lower authorities are meaning that for research purposes goods should be supplied only in smaller quantities. Such arguments of lower authorities clearly express their ignorance and they have not gone further to find what these parts really are; where they are going and what research purposes they will be used for. We believe that by not doing enough work on these aspects, Revenue Authorities are needlessly spending their resources in contesting the right stand of the appellants and the assessee/appellants are forced to go to the Higher Appellate Fora for addressing their such grievances.
6. We are fully convinced that these items are covered by the Notification No. 10/97 (supra) and they fulfill all the conditions for claiming the benefit of exemption Notification No.10/97 (supra). Without iota of any doubt, the subject goods are entitled to the benefit of Notification 10/97 (supra). Appeal allowed with consequential benefits to the appellants.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court) ASHOK K. ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER pnr 5