Jyoti Plastic Works P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 24-2-1992 passed by the collector of central excise (appeals).2. in the impugned order, the benefit of notification no. 155/86-c.e., dated 1-3-1986 was denied to the water filter manufactured by the appellants.3. ld. counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellants manufactured water filter and they claimed the benefit of notification 155/86-c.e. she submits that the notification 155/86-c.e.provides the exemption from the central excise duty to the water filters of capacity not exceeding 40 itrs. she submits that the notification does not stipulate that the water filter must have separate storage tank or separate candles. she submits that the water filters, manufactured by the appellants, are directly put on the taps.she also produced the samples of the product. she submits that the lower authorities wrongly held that the water filter, in question, does not have retaining capacity of water and, therefore, are not entitled for the benefit of notification. she submits that the tribunal in the case of c.c.e. v. iek plastics ltd. reported in 1999 (107) e.l.t. 206 allowed the benefit of this notification in respect of water filters known as zero b which are similar to the product, in question, in the present case. she submits that this decision was followed by the tribunal in the case of united engineers v. c.c.e., bombay-ii [vide final order no. 880/99-b, dated 20-8-1999 - 1999 (114) e.l.t. 613 (tribunal)]. she, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.4. heard shri ashok kumar, ld. jdr, who reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.5. in this case, the benefit of notification no. 155/86-c.e., dated 1-3-1986 is denied to the water filter manufactured by the appellants.in the impugned order, the collector of central excise held that the water filters in question, are put straight on the tap and their capacity cannot be measured. we find that the notification no.155/86-c.e. at sl. no. 4(ii) provides nil rate of duty to the water filters of capacity not exceeding 40 itrs. in the notification, there is no mention about minimum capacity for grant of the benefit of this notification. the tribunal in the earlier cases relied upon by the revenue in respect of similar products vide final order no. 880/99-b, dated 20-8-1999, held that there is no condition in the notification that on line water filter is not entitled for the exemption under this notification. respectfully following the earlier decision of the tribunal, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Judgment:
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 24-2-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).

2. In the impugned order, the benefit of Notification No. 155/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 was denied to the water filter manufactured by the appellants.

3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellants manufactured water filter and they claimed the benefit of Notification 155/86-C.E. She submits that the Notification 155/86-C.E.provides the exemption from the Central Excise duty to the water filters of capacity not exceeding 40 Itrs. She submits that the notification does not stipulate that the water filter must have separate storage tank or separate candles. She submits that the water filters, manufactured by the appellants, are directly put on the taps.

She also produced the samples of the product. She submits that the lower authorities wrongly held that the water filter, in question, does not have retaining capacity of water and, therefore, are not entitled for the benefit of notification. She submits that the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. IEK Plastics Ltd. reported in 1999 (107) E.L.T. 206 allowed the benefit of this notification in respect of water filters known as Zero B which are similar to the product, in question, in the present case. She submits that this decision was followed by the Tribunal in the case of United Engineers v. C.C.E., Bombay-II [vide Final Order No. 880/99-B, dated 20-8-1999 - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal)]. She, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.

4. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar, ld. JDR, who reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.

5. In this case, the benefit of Notification No. 155/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 is denied to the water filter manufactured by the appellants.

In the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise held that the water filters in question, are put straight on the tap and their capacity cannot be measured. We find that the Notification No.155/86-C.E. at Sl. No. 4(ii) provides nil rate of duty to the water filters of capacity not exceeding 40 Itrs. In the notification, there is no mention about minimum capacity for grant of the benefit of this notification. The Tribunal in the earlier cases relied upon by the Revenue in respect of similar products vide Final Order No. 880/99-B, dated 20-8-1999, held that there is no condition in the notification that on line water filter is not entitled for the exemption under this notification. Respectfully following the earlier decision of the Tribunal, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.