Central excise exemption for nickel perforated rotary screens failed because the relevant notifications did not cover them during the disputed period.

Nickel perforated rotary screens/cylinders were not covered by the cited central excise exemption notifications for the period 1-12-1990 to 30-4-1991. Notification No. 201/87-C.E. applied to printing frames, but these goods were not printing frames. Notification No. 64/86-C.E. applied to engraved copper rollers or cylinders for textile use, whereas the goods were neither copper rollers nor copper cylinders. The specific exemption for nickel perforated cylinder/screens came only under Notification No. 67/91-C.E., effective from 25-7-1991, after the relevant period. No other applicable exemption was shown, so the demand was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether nickel perforated rotary screens/cylinders were entitled to exemption under the relevant central excise notifications for the period 1-12-1990 to 30-4-1991.

Analysis: Notification No. 201/87-C.E. extended exemption to printing frames, but the goods in question were nickel perforated rotary cylinder/screens and could not be treated as printing frames. Notification No. 64/86-C.E. related to engraved copper rollers or cylinders for use in the textile industry, whereas the goods were neither copper rollers nor copper cylinders. The exemption for nickel perforated cylinder/screens was introduced only under Notification No. 67/91-C.E., and that notification was effective from 25-7-1991, which was after the period involved. No other exemption notification covering the relevant period was shown to apply.

Conclusion: The goods were not eligible for exemption for the period in dispute, and the appeal was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The demand was upheld because the claimed exemption did not cover the goods during the relevant period.

---