2004 (7) TMI 556 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant's Improper Duty Rate Use Appeal Rejected, Penalty Upheld

The Tribunal affirmed the decision that the appellant improperly availed of the concessional rate of duty without meeting the necessary criteria under ... Demand - Wrong availment of benefit of Notification No. 78/90-C.E. - Penalty Issues Involved:Whether availing the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 78/90-C.E. without filing the necessary classification declaration is permissible.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Benefit of Concessional Rate of DutyThe primary issue in this case revolves around whether the appellants can avail the benefit of a concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 78/90-C.E. without filing the required classification declaration. The notification exempts goods used in Pollution Control Equipments from duty in excess of 5% Adv., subject to specific conditions. The appellant cleared an Electrical Transformer under this notification without filing the necessary declaration. The department alleged that the appellant availed the concessional rate without meeting the notification's criteria, leading to a demand for differential duty and imposition of a penalty.Analysis:Upon reviewing Notification No. 78/90-C.E., it was established that an Electrical Transformer is not listed in the schedule of goods eligible for the concessional rate. The appellant failed to demonstrate how the transformer could qualify under any listed item. Consequently, it was concluded that the appellant wrongly benefited from the notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand for differential duty and penalty, citing the non-filing of the classification declaration under Rule 173B as the basis for the penalty. The Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner's decision and deemed the penalty of Rs. 1,000 justified for availing the concessional rate without meeting the eligibility criteria.Judgment:The Tribunal affirmed the lower appellate authority's decision, concluding that the appellant improperly availed of the concessional rate of duty without meeting the necessary criteria. Therefore, the appeal was rejected, and the penalty of Rs. 1,000 for non-compliance with Rule 173B was upheld.