Agricultural implement exemption denied for wheel barrows; duty rate applies on clearance date, with demand limited by time bar.

Manually operated wheel barrows were held not to be agricultural implements because their basic character is general and multifarious, so they did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 55/75-C.E. The duty-rate issue was decided by applying the rule governing clearance: where classification lists had been filed and approved, the applicable rate was the rate in force on the date of clearance under Rule 9A(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the department could not extend the demand beyond the permissible six-month period. The exemption claim therefore failed, while the demand was confined by limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether manually operated wheel barrows are agricultural implements entitled to exemption under Notification No. 55/75-C.E.; (ii) Whether the rate of duty is to be determined on the date of clearance of the goods or on the date of actual payment of duty.

Issue (i): Whether manually operated wheel barrows are agricultural implements entitled to exemption under Notification No. 55/75-C.E.

Analysis: Wheel barrows are capable of multifarious use and are used for transporting all kinds of goods. Their basic character is not that of an agricultural implement, and therefore they do not satisfy the description required for the exemption.

Conclusion: The issue is decided against the assessee. Wheel barrows are not agricultural implements and are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 55/75-C.E.

Issue (ii): Whether the rate of duty is to be determined on the date of clearance of the goods or on the date of actual payment of duty.

Analysis: Since the classification lists describing the goods and claiming the exemption had been filed and approved, the applicable rate follows the statutory rule governing the time of clearance, and the department cannot rely on the extended period beyond six months.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee. The demand is confined to the permissible period, and the rate of duty applicable is the rate in force on the date of clearance under Rule 9A(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim fails, but the demand is restricted by limitation and the duty rate is to be applied with reference to clearance.

Ratio Decidendi: An article or commodity with general and multifarious use cannot be treated as an agricultural implement merely because it may also be used in agricultural settings, and where approved classification lists exist, duty is attracted according to the rule governing the rate at the time of clearance.

---