TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (8) TMI 26
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellants for demand of duty on the ground that the goods cleared are not entitled for the said exemption. It is the contention of the Revenue that the impugned goods cannot be considered as Scientific and Technical Instrument or Apparatus or Equipment or Accessories or Spare parts for instruments, apparatus and equipment. Hence, the lower authority confirmed the demand and imposed equal penalty under Section 11AC. Further, he demanded interest under Section 11AB. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the lower authority in the impugned OIA. The appellants strongly challenge the impugned order. 3. Shri K.K. Varier, the learned Consultant, appeared for the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddy, the learned JDR, for the Rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he table annexed to the Notification. (iv) The Computer workstations and computer furnitures supplied by the appellants are squarely covered under Accessories to computers. The research work depends on the skills and efficiency of human beings and providing computer furniture is vital for better. results. The furnitures are designed for workstations specifically and scientifically to work long stretch without any hindrance and to avoid strain on spinal cord of human body. (v) It is held in the following cases that when an exemption is subject to the production of a certificate from the specified authorities in the Notification, it should be given credence because such a certificate is conclusive and binding on the Revenue authorities:....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... - 1989 (43) ELT 195 (SC) (ii) . Lubri-Chem Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bombay - 1994 (4) RLT 239 (SC)=1994 (73) ELT 257 (SC) (iii) Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company Vs. CCE - 1995 (78) ELT 401 (S C) (iv) CC, Bombay vs. Unitech Exports Ltd. - 1999 (31) RLT 552 (CEGAT) =1999 (108) ELT 462 (Tribunal) 5. The learned JDR submitted that these items are only meant for visitors and by no stretch of imagination, they can be called as accessories to scientific equipment, apparatus meant for research, etc. 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The issue is with regard to entitlement of exemption Notification 10/97-CE dated 1.3.1997 in respec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Chairs, etc. as per attached List." A perusal of the list shows that the items of furniture are specially designed for the laboratory. For a clearer understanding we are giving the list. 1. Island Table with Reagent Shelves 2. Reagent Shelves 3. Tables 4. Straight Work top with CPU holder and drawer unit 5. L-shaped work top with CPU holder and drawer unit for HOS, etc. It is seen that all these items are modular furniture specially designed for the laboratory. It can be seen that the Notification gives exemption not only for the scientific equipments but also fur the accessories. The question is whether the impugned goods can be considered as accessories or not. 6.2 The definition of accessory as given in The Oxford A....