Water filter exemption turns on filtration as the dominant process, with incidental purification not defeating notification benefit.

An apparatus that functions primarily by filtering water remains a water filter for exemption purposes where any purification is merely incidental to the filtering process and no separate purifying process is established. The original fact-finding authority accepted, after demonstration of the unit, that the product operated as a water filter, and that finding was not displaced on appeal. On that basis, the product was held entitled to exemption under the relevant notification, and the duty demand was found unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the product 'hydrapure' was entitled to exemption from duty as a water filter under Notification No. 155/86-C.E. dated 1-3-86, as followed by Notification No. 54/93-C.E. dated 28-2-1993.

Analysis: The original authority had found, on demonstration of the unit, that the product functioned as a water filter and was therefore exempt. The appellate authority did not dislodge that factual finding and relied on the circumstance that the apparatus also purified water. The decisive consideration was that purification occurred only as a result of the filtering process, and no separate purifying process was shown to exist apart from filtration.

Conclusion: The product remained a water filter for exemption purposes and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the notification.

Final Conclusion: The demand was unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside, resulting in success for the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an apparatus performs only filtering and any purification of water is incidental to that filtering process, it continues to fall within the category of a water filter for the purpose of the exemption notification.

---