Jyoti Electric Motors Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. in this appeal filed by m/s. jyoti electric motors ltd., the issue for our consideration is the applicability of exemption notification no. 82/72-c.e., dated 17-3-1972 to the electric motors which are marked with voltage 380 and 385. in the applicable notification the word are only electric motors designed for use in circuits at a pressure exceeding 400 volts. the department had held that the goods under consideration were not eligible for the benefit of said notification.3. on behalf of the respondent/revenue, shri g.d. sharma, jdr submitted that the electric motors in question had been designed for use in circuits at a pressure of 380 and 385 volts. as the exemption was only to those motors, which were designed for use in circuits at a pressure exceeding 400 volts, the benefit of exemption under notification no.82/72-c.e. had been rightly denied to them. he referred to the plea of the appellants that isi specifications provided for tolerance. he contended that this tolerance was for a different purpose and as the tolerance will not be taken into account for interpreting the exemption notification.4. we have carefully considered the matter. under exemption notification no. 82/72-c.e., dated 17-3-1972, electric motors designed for use in circuits exceeding 400 volts were eligible for concessional rate of central excise duty. the appellants had declared that the electric motors manufactured by them were of 380 and 385 volts. for the period preceding 18-6-1977 they were paying normal duty and had not claimed the benefit of notification dated 17-3-1972. it was only after 18-6-1977 when the notification no. 82/72 was amended to read the rated capacity in kilo watt terms as against the earlier power that they filed a revised classification list. for ease of reference, notification no. 82/72-c.e., dated 17-3-1972 and the amendment in that notification made by notification no. 189/77-c.e., dated 18-6-1977 is extracted below : notification no. 82/72-c.e., dated 17-3-1972 "in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the central excise rules, 1944, the central government hereby exempts electric motors designed for use in circuits at a pressure exceeding 400 volts, and with a rated capacity exceeding 10 horse power and falling under sub-item 2(ii) of item no. 30 of the first schedule to the central excises and salt act, 1944 (1 of 1944), from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of 7.5 per cent ad valorem." amendment in notification no. 82/72 made by notification no. 189/77-c.e., dated 18-6-1977 "in the said notification, for the words, figures and brackets "rated capacity exceeding 10 horse power and falling under sub-item 2(ii) of item no. 30" the words, figures, brackets and letter "rated capacity exceeding 7.5 kilowatts and falling under sub-item (a) (2)(ii) and (b)(ii) of item no. 30", shall be substituted." 5. it will be seen that amendment was only with regard to the rated capacity and it had nothing to do with the volts as such. the exemption notification is clear and it provides for concessional rate of duty only when the electric motors were designed for use in circuits at a pressure exceeding 400 volts.6. the appellants had pleaded that as per isi specifications a tolerance of 8% was provided in the voltage capacity. the tolerance is for testing purposes and it could not be said that by virtue of the tolerance limit the motor designed for 380 and 385 voltage will be taken as to have been designed 8% less or 8% more voltage.7. there is no dispute that the actual marking on the motors was 380 and 385 volts. no evidence was produced before the asstt. collector that such motors marked with 380 and 385 volts were designed for use in circuits at a pressure exceeding 400 volts. the asstt. collector had observed that the asses-see without actually satisfying the department that the said motors were entitled to concessional rate of duty availed the benefit on their own and did not produce any evidence leading to [their] conclusions. the collector of central excise (appeals) have affirmed these findings of the asstt. collector.8. keeping in view the factual aspect of the case, we consider that the benefit of exemption notification no. 82/72-c.e. was not available and has been rightly denied.9. taking all the relevant considerations into account, we reject this appeal. ordered accordingly.

Judgment:
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Jyoti Electric Motors Ltd., the issue for our consideration is the applicability of exemption Notification No. 82/72-C.E., dated 17-3-1972 to the electric motors which are marked with voltage 380 and 385. In the applicable Notification the word are only electric motors designed for use in circuits at a pressure exceeding 400 volts. The Department had held that the goods under consideration were not eligible for the benefit of said notification.

3. On behalf of the respondent/Revenue, Shri G.D. Sharma, JDR submitted that the electric motors in question had been designed for use in circuits at a pressure of 380 and 385 volts. As the exemption was only to those motors, which were designed for use in circuits at a pressure exceeding 400 volts, the benefit of exemption under Notification No.82/72-C.E. had been rightly denied to them. He referred to the plea of the appellants that ISI specifications provided for tolerance. He contended that this tolerance was for a different purpose and as the tolerance will not be taken into account for interpreting the exemption notification.

4. We have carefully considered the matter. Under exemption Notification No. 82/72-C.E., dated 17-3-1972, electric motors designed for use in circuits exceeding 400 volts were eligible for concessional rate of central excise duty. The appellants had declared that the electric motors manufactured by them were of 380 and 385 volts. For the period preceding 18-6-1977 they were paying normal duty and had not claimed the benefit of notification dated 17-3-1972. It was only after 18-6-1977 when the Notification No. 82/72 was amended to read the rated capacity in Kilo Watt terms as against the earlier power that they filed a revised classification list. For ease of reference, Notification No. 82/72-C.E., dated 17-3-1972 and the amendment in that notification made by Notification No. 189/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977 is extracted below : Notification No. 82/72-C.E., dated 17-3-1972 "In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts electric motors designed for use in circuits at a pressure exceeding 400 volts, and with a rated capacity exceeding 10 horse power and falling under sub-item 2(ii) of Item No. 30 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of 7.5 per cent ad valorem." Amendment in Notification No. 82/72 made by Notification No. 189/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977 "In the said notification, for the words, figures and brackets "rated capacity exceeding 10 horse power and falling under sub-item 2(ii) of Item No. 30" the words, figures, brackets and letter "rated capacity exceeding 7.5 kilowatts and falling under sub-item (A) (2)(ii) and (B)(ii) of Item No. 30", shall be substituted." 5. It will be seen that amendment was only with regard to the rated capacity and it had nothing to do with the volts as such. The exemption notification is clear and it provides for concessional rate of duty only when the electric motors were designed for use in circuits at a pressure exceeding 400 volts.

6. The appellants had pleaded that as per ISI specifications a tolerance of 8% was provided in the voltage capacity. The tolerance is for testing purposes and it could not be said that by virtue of the tolerance limit the motor designed for 380 and 385 voltage will be taken as to have been designed 8% less or 8% more voltage.

7. There is no dispute that the actual marking on the motors was 380 and 385 volts. No evidence was produced before the Asstt. Collector that such motors marked with 380 and 385 volts were designed for use in circuits at a pressure exceeding 400 volts. The Asstt. Collector had observed that the asses-see without actually satisfying the Department that the said motors were entitled to concessional rate of duty availed the benefit on their own and did not produce any evidence leading to [their] conclusions. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) have affirmed these findings of the Asstt. Collector.

8. Keeping in view the factual aspect of the case, we consider that the benefit of exemption Notification No. 82/72-C.E. was not available and has been rightly denied.

9. Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we reject this appeal. Ordered accordingly.