Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S Unicorn Connector Pvt. Ltd on 27 April, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II Appeal No. E/347/04 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PD/217/M-IV/2003 dated 30.9.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai). For approval and signature: Honble Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical) Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV Appellant Vs. M/s Unicorn Connector Pvt. Ltd. Respondents Appearance:
Shri A.K. Prabhakar JDR for Appellant None for Respondent CORAM:
SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing: 27.04.2011 Date of Decision: 27.04.2011 ORDER NO. WZB/MUM/2011 Per: B.S.V. Murthy, The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of connectors with wire which was classifiable according to them under CETH 8536.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (Tariff). The department took a view that the product is classifiable under CETH 8544.00 of the Tariff. Further, a view was also taken that the respondent was not eligible for SSI benefit since they had held only a provisional Certificate of Registration with Director of Industries and the product manufactured by them was not listed therein. Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order, which extended the benefit of SSI exemption and also took a view that the product is correctly classifiable under CETH 8536.90.
2. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. Union Connectors Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2008 (232) ELT 205 (Tri-LB) has taken a view that the product similar to the one manufactured by the respondent is classifiable under CETH 8536.90. As regards SSI exemption, it is not a case of the Revenue that the respondent is not registered. The ground taken is that the registration was provisional and the product was not listed. The Notification does not require final approval or final registration but requires only registration. It is not the case of the Revenue that provisional registration was cancelled. Consequently, it is also not the case of the Revenue that Director of Industries did not find it appropriate to indicate the name of the product in the certificate. Under these circumstances, we are unable to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Pronounced in Court)
(Ashok Jindal) (B.S.V. Murthy)
Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)
Vks/
1