2012 (7) TMI 674 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns duty demand based on certificate validity interpretation

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner(Appeals)'s order demanding duty, interest, and penalty. The dispute centered on the ... Exemption Notification No.33/2005-CE dt. 08/09/2005 - compliance of conditions - machinery / equipment required for initial setting up of a project for the generation of power using non-conventional materials, namely, agricultural, forestry, agro-industrial, industrial, municipal and urban waste, bio-waste or poultry litter, subject to two conditions - held that:- debate revolves around the literary construction of the underlined portion of the certificate. - Without offence to the learned Commissioner(Appeals), we observe that the original authority understood it rightly. - the certificate was being issued in terms of two Notifications, which Notifications were valid for the year 2007-08. The assessee cleared the subject goods in April 2008 when the certificate was very much valid and the two Notifications were very much in force. - Benefit of exemption allowed. Issues: Interpretation of certificate validity for exemption under Notification No.33/2005-CE.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the appellate Commissioner's order demanding duty, interest, and penalty. The original authority had dropped the demand, but the learned Commissioner(Appeals) set it aside. The dispute revolved around the interpretation of a certificate required for exemption under Notification No.33/2005-CE. The first condition of the notification mandated a certificate from an officer recommending the grant of exemption. The appellant produced a certificate from the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India, stating that the equipment was required for a project using non-conventional materials. The certificate mentioned that it was valid for the year 2007-08. The Commissioner(Appeals) interpreted this validity period to restrict the exemption. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the clause 'valid for the year 2007-08' referred to the Notifications, not the certificate itself. The Tribunal found that the certificate was valid when the goods were cleared in April 2008, and the Notifications were in force, thus allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the literary construction of the certificate's validity clause and its relation to the Notifications. The Tribunal clarified that the certificate remained valid when the goods were cleared, and the Notifications were in effect, leading to the allowance of the appeal and the setting aside of the Commissioner(Appeals)'s order.