CESTAT Chennai Allows Appeal on Duty Exemption Dispute under Notification No.33/2005-CE

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI allowed the appeal in the case involving duty exemption under Notification No.33/2005-CE. The tribunal found in favor of the appellants, holding that the notification benefit cannot be denied based on the consignee of the goods. The appellants were granted consequential benefits as per the law, and the impugned order for recovery of duty, interest, and penalty was not sustained.

---

---

Issues:
- Duty exemption under Notification No.33/2005-CE
- Correct consignee of the goods
- Interpretation of conditions for notification benefit

Analysis:
1. Duty exemption under Notification No.33/2005-CE:
The case involved M/s. KSB Pumps Ltd., manufacturers of industrial valves, who cleared goods to M/s. Thermax Ltd. without duty payment, availing exemption under Notification No.33/2005-CE. The department initiated proceedings for recovery of duty, interest, and penalty. The original authority confirmed the proposals, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision. The appellants challenged this before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI.

2. Correct consignee of the goods:
During the hearing, the appellant's advocate argued that the goods were supplied to M/s. Rake Power Ltd. on account of M/s. Thermax Ltd., Pune, as indicated in the invoices. The advocate emphasized that the goods were used for the intended purpose, supported by a certificate from the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. The advocate cited relevant case laws to support the contention that exemption cannot be denied based on the recipient of the goods.

3. Interpretation of conditions for notification benefit:
The department contended that the benefit of the notification was not available as the conditions stipulated had not been fulfilled. However, after hearing both sides and examining the facts and invoices, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contentions. The Tribunal observed that the goods were consigned to M/s. Rake Power Ltd. and used for the intended purpose, as supported by the case laws cited by the appellant's counsel. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the notification benefit cannot be denied.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI allowed the appeal, finding in favor of the appellants and holding that the impugned order could not be sustained. The appellants were granted consequential benefits as per the law.

---