TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellant entitled to duty exemption for ASRS under Notification No. 67/95 CE</h1> <h3>M/s BHEL, Hyderabad Versus Commissioner of Customs And Central Excise, Bhopal</h3> The Tribunal held that the appellant, a unit of BHEL, was entitled to duty exemption under Notification No. 67/95 CE for an Automatic Storage Retrieval ... Denial of exemption claim - manufacture of capital goods (generating sets) at site for manufacturing of finished goods - whether the appellant is entitled to benefit of notification No. 67/95 ibid or not - Held that:- Revenue has not disputed that impugned goods i.e. ASRS is falling under CTH 84.26 which is specified in the definition of capital goods. - As the issue is no longer res integra in the light of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Triveni Engineering & Indus. Ltd.(2000 (9) TMI 1049 - SUPREME COURT), therefore, we hold that appellant is entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 CE dated 16.3.1995. Therefore, the appellants are not required to pay duty on the impugned goods. Consequently, impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:- Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Heading 84.26- Applicability of Notification No. 67/95 CE for duty exemptionClassification of Goods:The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of goods, specifically an Automatic Storage Retrieval System (ASRS), under Central Excise Tariff Heading 84.26 as capital goods. The appellant, a unit of BHEL located in Hyderabad, received a purchase order from another BHEL unit in Bhopal for the supply of ASRS. The appellant assembled, erected, and installed the ASRS at the Bhopal unit, using a combination of items purchased from vendors and items manufactured in-house. The Revenue contended that the ASRS constituted capital goods and attracted duty liability, leading to the initiation of proceedings. The appellant challenged the demand, arguing that the ASRS, being immovable, was not excisable and, if considered capital goods, should be exempt under Notification No. 67/95 CE.Applicability of Notification No. 67/95 CE:The appellant contested the duty liability on two grounds: immovability of the ASRS and entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 CE. The appellant relied on precedents such as Triveni Engineering & Indus. Ltd. and ISGEC Covema Ltd., which supported the applicability of the said notification for duty exemption. The Revenue argued that the ASRS, being movable and meeting the definition of capital goods under Rule 57AA(a), was subject to duty. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 CE. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions and the relevant provisions of the notification to support its conclusion, emphasizing that the appellant met the criteria for duty exemption under the notification. Consequently, the impugned order demanding duty, interest, and penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of classification of goods and the applicability of Notification No. 67/95 CE for duty exemption, providing a detailed overview of the legal arguments, precedents, and final decision rendered by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
