Remi Motors Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-v - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. miscellaneous application for early hearing of the appeal is allowed having regard to the grounds contained in the application.2. the issue in dispute is as to whether the benefit of concessional rate of duty of 5% in terms of notification 116/88 is available to the blood cell separators manufactured by the appellant herein. the assistant commissioner extended benefit of the notification; his order was reviewed and the commissioner (appeals) denied the benefit of the notification on the ground that examination of purchase order of m/s.bajaj auto limited showed that the item in dispute was used for determination of sulphate content of chromium plating solution. hence this appeal.4. perusal of the records and relevant notification shows that there is no condition attached in the notification regarding the type or class of purchasers of the product. we have also perused the list of purchasers during the period in dispute, march, 1994 to june, 1994 and find that bulk of the purchasers are manufacturers of surgical instruments and also chemical laboratories. in this view of the matter the case needs to be re-examined by the lower appellate authority in the light of the material placed before us.5. we therefore set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the commissioner (appeals) for fresh decision in accordance with law after extending a reasonable opportunity to the appellant of being heard and producing such evidence as they think necessary for supporting their contention.

Judgment:
1. Miscellaneous application for early hearing of the appeal is allowed having regard to the grounds contained in the application.

2. The issue in dispute is as to whether the benefit of concessional rate of duty of 5% in terms of Notification 116/88 is available to the blood cell separators manufactured by the appellant herein. The Assistant Commissioner extended benefit of the notification; his order was reviewed and the Commissioner (Appeals) denied the benefit of the notification on the ground that examination of purchase order of M/s.

Bajaj Auto Limited showed that the item in dispute was used for determination of sulphate content of chromium plating solution. Hence this appeal.

4. Perusal of the records and relevant notification shows that there is no condition attached in the notification regarding the type or class of purchasers of the product. We have also perused the list of purchasers during the period in dispute, March, 1994 to June, 1994 and find that bulk of the purchasers are manufacturers of surgical instruments and also chemical laboratories. In this view of the matter the case needs to be re-examined by the lower appellate authority in the light of the material placed before us.

5. We therefore set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision in accordance with law after extending a reasonable opportunity to the appellant of being heard and producing such evidence as they think necessary for supporting their contention.