2004 (2) TMI 640 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal affirms Commissioner's decision on DEPB classification & contract interpretation.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision in an appeal by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal, regarding the classification under the ... Export - DEPB Scheme Issues: Revenue appeal against Order-in-Appeal; Classification under DEPB Scheme; Composite contract interpretation.The Revenue filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal issued by the Commissioner (Appeals). The case involved the export of two machines by the respondents under the DEPB Scheme. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents alleging that a tabular fabric manufacturing plant was exported instead of the entitled machines. The Commissioner (Appeals) determined that the machines were distinct and not a complete tabular fabric manufacturing plant, based on the evidence and contract between the parties. The Revenue argued that a composite contract was entered into specifying a composite price for a complete tabular fabric manufacturing plant. However, the contract produced by the respondents clearly indicated separate prices for the two different machines, showing they were distinct and unrelated in their processes. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted this argument, and the Revenue failed to provide evidence to challenge these findings. Consequently, the Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner's decision and dismissed the appeal.This judgment addressed the issues of classification under the DEPB Scheme and the interpretation of a composite contract in the context of an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal. The case revolved around the export of two machines by the respondents and the Revenue's contention that a tabular fabric manufacturing plant was exported instead. The Commissioner (Appeals) analyzed the evidence and the contract between the parties to determine that the machines were distinct and not a complete plant. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the contract clearly specified separate prices for the two machines, indicating their independent nature. The absence of evidence from the Revenue to refute these findings led to the dismissal of the appeal. This judgment underscores the importance of clear contractual terms in determining the classification for benefits under schemes like DEPB and the significance of providing substantial evidence to challenge decisions in appellate proceedings.