India Metal and Alloys Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/942733
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided OnFeb-22-2010
Case NumberAppeal No.E/522 of 2003
Judge THE HONOURABLE MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
AppellantIndia Metal and Alloys
RespondentCommissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore
Advocates:Shri R.Balagopal, Consultant, Shri C.Rangaraju, SDR.
Excerpt:
per jyoti balasundaram the authorities below have confirmed a demand of duty of rs.20,468/- on amber charkhas manufactured by the appellants herein, by denying exemption in terms of notification no.198/87 dt. 28.8.87 as amended on the ground that the certificate dt. 2.1.98 issued by the director, khadi and village industries commission (kvic), bombay produced by the appellants, does not specifically mention that amber charkha is a genuine product of village industry. 2. we have heard both sides. we find that the amber charkha was manufactured only as per the specification of the kvic and the entire production was supplied to the kvic, that certificate issued by the kvic clearly states that the appellant has been asked to manufacture spindle charkhas for the year 1997-98, that each charkha is as per blue print and specification stipulated by the commission and that the implements are required by the implementing agencies for development of khadi and village industries, for conducting field trials. in these circumstances, denial of the benefit under the notification is not legally sustainable and we accordingly set aside the same and allow the appeal.
Judgment:

Per Jyoti Balasundaram

The authorities below have confirmed a demand of duty of Rs.20,468/- on Amber Charkhas manufactured by the appellants herein, by denying exemption in terms of Notification No.198/87 dt. 28.8.87 as amended on the ground that the certificate dt. 2.1.98 issued by the Director, Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC), Bombay produced by the appellants, does not specifically mention that Amber Charkha is a genuine product of village industry.

2. We have heard both sides. We find that the Amber Charkha was manufactured only as per the specification of the KVIC and the entire production was supplied to the KVIC, that certificate issued by the KVIC clearly states that the appellant has been asked to manufacture Spindle Charkhas for the year 1997-98, that each Charkha is as per blue print and specification stipulated by the Commission and that the implements are required by the implementing agencies for development of Khadi and Village Industries, for conducting field trials. In these circumstances, denial of the benefit under the notification is not legally sustainable and we accordingly set aside the same and allow the appeal.