Rochem Separation Systems Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Rochem Separation Systems vs Commr. of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Nov 03, 2006

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/43993

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/43993
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, Vice-, A T K.K.
Decided On: Nov 03, 2006
Subject: Intellectual Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Intellectual Property

Key legal issue: Intellectual Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rochem Separation Systems

Respondent

Commr. of C. Ex.

Excerpt

.....material that the goods are machinery and not complete plant. however, as regards the alternate claim for benefit of exemption in terms of notification no. 6/2002, we find that prima facie, the goods are to be considered as effluent treatment unit in the light of the certificate issued by the maharashtra pollution control board on 8-2-2006, certifying that the goods manufactured by the applicants herein are effluent treatment unit with reverse osmosis to deliver water for reuse and effluent generated in the process is subjected to biomethanation and then treated by the applicants to deliver water for reuse in the industrial process. the finding of the commissioner in paragraph 18 of the impugned order that the benefit under notification no. 6/2002 is not available to the applicants for the reason that neither during the proceedings nor from the maharashtra pollution control board certificate furnished it is brought out that other facilities such as automatic sensing devices, dissolved air floatation, vacuum filters etc. which are the goods covered by sl. no.40 of list 6 to notification no. 6/2002, are available prima facie not tenable, for the reason that in the case of arvind mills ltd. v. cc mumbai the benefit under sl. no. 150 of notification no. 11/97-cus was extended to reverse osmosis elements and membranes housing fibre glass reverse osmosis pressure vessels imported by arvind mills ltd. which did not contain other facilities such as automatic sensing devices etc. and the language of sl. no. 150 to notification no. 11/97-cus. is pari materia with sl. no.6 to the present notification no. 6/2002. we, therefore, hold that the applicants have made out a prima facie case on the alternate claim for benefit under notification no. 6/2002. hence, we waive the pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. We have heard both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 43,50,096/- and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs. The demand has been confirmed on Rochem Disc and Tube Reverse Osmosis (DTRO) falling under Ch. Heading 84.21 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985, by denial of benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.3/2004-C.E. dated 8-1-2004 and Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. dated 1-3-2002 by Sl. No. 193 of the Table thereto read with List 6 of the Notification. The period of dispute is from March to May 2005.

2. The benefit of Notification No. 3/2004 is available inter alia to all items of machinery, including instruments, apparatus etc. required for setting up of water supply plants. It is the case of the department that the goods in question are complete plant and therefore, not covered by the benefit of exemption of the said notification. Prima facie, the applicants have not been able to satisfy us with reference to the acceptable material that the goods are machinery and not complete plant. However, as regards the alternate claim for benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 6/2002, we find that prima facie, the goods are to be considered as Effluent Treatment Unit in the light of the certificate issued by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board on 8-2-2006, certifying that the goods manufactured by the applicants herein are Effluent Treatment Unit with Reverse Osmosis to deliver water for reuse and effluent generated in the process is subjected to Biomethanation and then treated by the applicants to deliver water for reuse in the industrial process. The finding of the Commissioner in paragraph 18 of the impugned order that the benefit under Notification No. 6/2002 is not available to the applicants for the reason that neither during the proceedings nor from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board certificate furnished it is brought out that other facilities such as automatic sensing devices, dissolved air floatation, vacuum filters etc. which are the goods covered by Sl. No.40 of List 6 to Notification No. 6/2002, are available prima facie not tenable, for the reason that in the case of Arvind Mills Ltd. v. CC Mumbai the benefit under Sl. No. 150 of Notification No. 11/97-Cus was extended to Reverse Osmosis elements and Membranes Housing Fibre Glass Reverse Osmosis Pressure Vessels imported by Arvind Mills Ltd. which did not contain other facilities such as automatic sensing devices etc. and the language of Sl. No. 150 to Notification No. 11/97-Cus. is pari materia with Sl. No.6 to the present Notification No. 6/2002. We, therefore, hold that the applicants have made out a prima facie case on the alternate claim for benefit under Notification No. 6/2002. Hence, we waive the pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Rochem Separation Systems vs Commr. of C. Ex. Same Subject Intellectual Property Same Judge J Balasundaram, Vice-, A T K.K.