TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1072
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acting 25% duty as against 15% duty paid under chapter heading No. 8430 classified by the appellant. In the said show cause notice along with the change of classification, the consequential demand and penalty were also purposed. This matter travelled upto CEGAT, who vide its order dated 28.10.1993 reported at 1994 (70) ELT 580 (Tribunal) agreed with the classification adopted by the appellant and dropped the demand and penalty. The department filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which vide its judgment dated 16.12.2003 reported at 2004 (163) ELT 290 (SC) settled the classification dispute against the appellant holding that the goods were classifiable under chapter heading No. 8705 as special purpose motor vehicle. 1.1 That pursuant thereto, the Appellant made detailed representations including through Chamber of Commerce, seeking alternative exemption benefit under Notification No. 242/86-CE for goods falling under CTH 8705. Even the CBEC issued directions to consider the case suitably as well. The lower authorities, however, rejected the alternative exemption benefit on the following grounds:- a. The Appellant had never claimed classification under CETH 8705 during....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an be no estoppel against the law. 3. That similar view was taken in the following cases as well: * Fibrotex Processors 2016 (344) E.L.T. 339 (Tri. - Mumbai) * Shriram Bearings Ltd. 2001 (135) E.L.T. 600 (Tri. - Kolkata) * Kopran Chemicals Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1990 (48) E.L.T. 569 (Tribunal) 4. That in an identical case wherein for identical goods (special purpose vehicle), the benefit of similar exemption was granted vide the following decisions:- Indian Hydraulic Industries 2002 (10) TMI 105 - Supreme Court Kailash Auto Builders Ltd. 2010 (6) TMI 387 - CESTAT, MUMBAI 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Tribunal, in catena of cases has allowed such alternative exemption benefit at later stage: JAGDISH CANCER & RESEARCH CENTRE 2001 (132) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) SHARE MEDICAL CARE 2007 (209) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) JAYASWAL NECO LTD. 2015 (322) E.L.T. 587 (S.C.) RALLIS INDIA LTD. 2017 (358) E.L.T. 285 (Tri. - Mumbai) DURGABHAI DESHMUKH HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE 2011 (272) E.L.T. 300 (Tri. - Bang.) CHHAJED FOODS PVT LTD 2024 (2) TMI 1320 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD 6. Be that as it may, the issue is one of complex interpretational nature of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve exemption Notification only on the ground that the appellant have not claimed the exemption notification in the classification listed. Therefore, at this stage the notification being a conditional one cannot be examined from its eligibility and therefore the notification was denied. 4.1 We find that there was no occasion for the appellant to claim the exemption Notification 242/86-CE dated 03.04.1986, for the reason that there was a dispute about classification as the appellant had claimed the classification under 84.30 as against the Revenue's claim under 87.05. This dispute has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appellant's own case reported at LMP Preicision Engineer and Company Pvt Ltd. -2004 (163) ELT 290 (SC). Only after the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it has been settled that the goods manufactured by the appellant i.e. Drilling Rigs mounted on truck chassis/crawler is classified under chapter 8705. Once the classification is settled, the Notification No. 242/86-CE which is applicable to the goods falling under Chapter 8705 became eligible to the appellant. The lower authorities have contended that the appellant have not claimed the said exem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng under Chapter 40.05, hence cannot claim the benefit of notification thereof; and it is a settled law that assessee can be extended legimate benefit of the notification even at the stage of second appeal. Accordingly, we hold that for the period October, 1986 to February, 1987, the appellant is eligible for Notification No. 377/86-C.E., in respect of the product "rubber solution" of CTH-40.05. We find the duty liability for the period needs to be recalculated and appellant is directed to discharge the such duty liability." b) In the case of Shriram Bearings Ltd (Supra) also considered the issue that even if the exemption notification was not claimed in the classification but if the same is eligible, it can be extended otherwise also. The relevant para is reproduced below:- "4. The other ground adopted by the adjudicating authority for denying the benefit of the said Notification is that the same was not claimed by the appellants in their Classification List. We agree with the contention of the learned Advocate that availability of exemption Notification is not squarely dependent upon the same being claimed in the Classification List. The appellants claimed the Notification No.....