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>Tribunal allows exemption claim for electric motors under Notification No.5/99-CE despite technical lapse.</h1> <h3>Crompton Greaves Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai</h3> The Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to the exemption claim for electric motors, stators, rotors, and electric shields under Notification ... Benefit of N/N. 5/99 (Sl.No.264) - Electric motors - benefit denied on the ground that exemption was not available to stators, rotors and Electric Shields, etc., as the final products were exempted from payment of duty Held that:- The exemption is applicable to all the goods falling under any chapter except the three listed therein at Sl.No.264. The items discussed in the impugned order are not the one which are in the excluded list. Therefore, the original authority has rightly held that the appellants are eligible to avail the notification - Further, the appellants have been availing the same exemption N/N. 67/95-CE and 06/2000-CE. Classification lists have been accepted by the department for further period. This being the situation, the exemption cannot be denied for the impugned period only for the reason that the appellants have not claimed the same in the declaration - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Exemption claim for electric motors, stators, rotors, and electric shields under Notification No.5/99-CE, Condonation of lapse in declaration filing, Applicability of multiple notifications, Interpretation of Notification No.5/99-CE conditions.Analysis:1. The appeal challenged an Order-in-Appeal regarding the exemption claim for electric motors, stators, rotors, and electric shields under Notification No.5/99-CE. The appellants sought exemption for clearance to sister units for manufacturing P.D. Pumps exempted from duty. A show-cause notice was issued, questioning the exemption for stators, rotors, and shields. The lower authorities dropped the proceedings, citing technical lapses in declaration filing.2. The appellant argued that the show-cause notice period did not cover subsequent filings claiming benefits under different notifications. They relied on precedents like Vickers Sperry of India Ltd. and Kopran Chemicals Co. Ltd., emphasizing that benefits should extend suo moto without penalizing technical errors in declarations.3. The appellant contended that stators, rotors, and shields were essential for P.D. Pumps' functionality, citing legal precedents like Mahendra Engineering Works and KSB Pumps Ltd. They invoked the principle that a part of a machine is integral to the whole, supported by judgments such as Shriram Bearing Ltd. and Bansal Industries Corporation.4. Referring to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Share Medical Care, the appellant argued that exemption benefits should apply even if not explicitly claimed. The Additional Commissioner's reasoned order and resolution of CERA audit objections were highlighted to support the appellant's position.5. The Revenue, represented by the AR, reiterated the findings of the order-in-appeal, contesting the appellant's claims.6. Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal noted the original authority's reliance on precedents like KSB Pumps Ltd. and Mahendra Engineering Works. It emphasized that multiple notifications could be availed simultaneously, as established in Hindustan Lever Ltd.7. The Tribunal analyzed Notification No.5/99-CE's conditions, specifically excluding electrical stampings, laminations, bearings, and winding wires. It concluded that the items in question were not on the exclusion list, affirming the appellants' eligibility for the exemption.8. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to the exemption under Notification No.5/99-CE, despite the technical lapse in declaration filing for the specific period in question. The appeal was allowed, and cross-objections were disposed of accordingly.This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal intricacies involved in the case, addressing each issue comprehensively and referencing relevant legal principles and precedents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
