2011 (3) TMI 1406 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate tribunal remands case for detailed review, sets aside duty demand, and allows appeal for exemption eligibility examination.

The appellate tribunal remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for a detailed review of certificates issued by government agencies regarding the ... Demand of duty and a penalty of equivalent amount - demand on the ground that the appellants have cleared their finished goods by availing notification No.10/97-CE dated 01/03/97. As they were not eligible for the exemption, it was found by the adjudicating authority that the goods supplied by the appellants to BARC, ISRO, etc. were used by BARC and ISRO after doing some cutting, bending, etc. It was also observed that the benefit of exemption notification is available only when the assessee satisfied all the conditions of the notification. As in this case the description of use has not been stated in the certificate issued by the competent authority of BARC/ISRO, therefore, the benefit of exemption notification was denied - Held that:- adjudicating authority directed to look into the certificates issued by BARC/ISRO, etc. with regard to the end use of the impugned goods supplied by the appellants to them and to consider the contention of the appellants with regard to the annexure 'C' and 'D' of the show-cause notice, after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants to present their case in accordance with the law, order is set aside, the appeal is allowed by way of remand Issues:1. Entitlement for the benefit of exemption notification No.10/97.Analysis:The appeal was against an order confirming a duty demand and penalty. The case involved the clearance of finished goods, stainless steel pipes and tubes, under notification No.10/97-CE. The appellants supplied goods to government agencies like BARC and ISRO, claiming exemption under the notification. However, the adjudicating authority found discrepancies in the certificates issued by BARC/ISRO regarding the specific use of the goods for research purposes. The appellants argued that they met the conditions of the notification and had obtained certificates confirming exemption eligibility. They also later produced certificates showing the end use of the goods as parts/accessories to scientific instruments. The issue revolved around whether the appellants were entitled to the exemption under the notification.Upon examining the relevant notification, it was noted that the exemption was subject to specific conditions, including the requirement for a certificate from a competent authority stating that the goods are needed for research purposes. The certificates provided did not clearly specify the category of goods supplied, leading to the denial of exemption by the adjudicating authority. The appellate tribunal acknowledged the new certificates produced by the appellants but deemed them necessary for further examination by the adjudicating authority. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for a detailed review of the certificates issued by BARC/ISRO regarding the end use of the goods supplied, allowing the appellants an opportunity to present their case properly.In conclusion, the tribunal remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for a thorough examination of the certificates provided by BARC/ISRO, emphasizing the need to consider the appellants' contentions and the annexures of the show-cause notice. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their case in accordance with the law.