TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ified at items No. 1 to 40 above. The rotary/ flat bed screen printing machines were specified at Sr. No. 26 of the said list, that the cylinders manufactured by them are used in the said rotary/ flat bed screen printing machines. That their cylinders have designs inscribed on them and when the cylinders were mounted on the machine, printing of the relevant design takes place and the said commodity classified as cylinders and other printing components under Heading 84425031. The chapter heading 8443 refers to printing of machines by means of plates, cylinders and other printing components of heading 8442; that sub heading 84439100 refers to parts and accessories of printing machines used for printing by means or cylinders and other printing components of heading 8442 and hence the aforesaid commodity would qualify for concessional rate of duty under List 2 as components of Rotary printing machine and will attract duty @5% concessional rate of duty contained in entry No. 3 of Notification No. 6/2006-CE, accordingly they were clearing their product @5% concessional rate of duty. On scrutiny of their monthly returns, it was observed that during the period from January 2012 to June 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dyog 2008 (231) ELT 27 (SC) • Indo-Japanese Industries Ltd. 1986 (24) ELT 527 (Cal.) • Precision Rubber Industries 1990 (49) ELT 170 (Bom.) • Jyoti Ltd. 1979 (4) ELT (J546)(Guj.) • UOI v Jyoti Ltd. 1997(96) ELT A73 (SC) • Bajaj Auto Ltd. 1989 (44) ELT 763 (Tri.) • Manipal Academy of Higher Education 2005 (190) ELT 113 (Tri. Bang.) 4. Shri Tara Prakash, learned (Assistant Commissioner) Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi vs Harish Industries Engineers 2008 (223) ELT 651 (Tri. Amd.). 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. 6. We find that in the present case, the limited issue to be decided by us is that whether the appellant's products, namely, 'Perforated Nickel Cylinders (Screen)' is eligible for concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 6/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011 or otherwise. We find that the very same issue has been decided by this Tribunal vide Order No. A/12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... He relied on the decision of CCE Jaipur vs Mewar Bartan Nirman Udyog 2008 (231) ELT 27 (SC) to say that where the language is plain and clear, effect must be given to it. While interpreting the exemption notification, one cannot go by rules of interpretation applicable to cases of classification dispute in the cases of HSN which is the basis of tariff. He further relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Indo Japanese Industries vs Assistant Collector, Calcutta 1986 (24) ELT 527 (Cal.) wherein it was held that Dynamo lighting sets is a cycle part exempt from duty although that is sold separately. He also relied on the decision of Jyoti Limited vs. Union of India 1979 (4) ELT(J546) Guj. 4. On the other hand, learned Authorised Representative strongly supported the impugned order and heavily relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P vs Kores (India) Ltd. 1990 (26) ECR 464 (SC) and Harish Industries Engineers (supra) to say that the said items cleared by the appellant are not parts or components of the items mentioned at Sr. no. 1-40 of list 2 of notification no. -6/2011-CE dated 01/03/2011 and are accessories only. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd to classification. The only issue raised by the Revenue with regard to denial of notification no. 06/2011-CE dated 01/03/2011 and heavily relied on the decision of Harish Industries Engineers (supra). Admittedly, in the case of Harish Industries Engineers (supra) the dispute with regard to classification of product and in the case of Mewar Bartan Nirman Udyog (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified that while interpreting exemption notification, one cannot go by rules of interpretation applicable to cases of classification under the tariff. Therefore, the said decision in the case of Harish Industries Engineers(supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. We take a note of the fact that the appellant has classified the impugned goods under CTH 844250 which includes "Plates,cylinders and other printing components;" The said classification has not been disputed by the Revenue. In the circumstances while giving benefit of notification no. 06/11-CE dated 01/03/2011 in list 2 Sr. no. 41 which reads as under: "(v) in List-2, after item no. 40 and the entries relating thereto, the following shall be added namely: (41) Parts or components of the machiner....