Commissioner of Central Excise vs Rajendra Mechanical Industries Ltd.

We have heard both sides and perused with their assistance the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai. That order passed by the Tribunal on 14th June, 2013 is impugned in this appeal by the Revenue. Mr. Rao learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal submits that the appeal raises substantial question of law particularly on the interpretation of the notification. The notification and which has been extensively referred, namely, Notification No. 10/97-C.E. , dated 1st March, 1997 exempts the goods of the description mentioned in the said notification from the whole of the duty of the excise leviable thereon provided these goods are supplied to the institutions specified in entry in column (2) of the table but subject to the conditions specified in column (4).

Mr. Rao would submit that on the prior occasions no certificates from the institution were furnished. When they were furnished during the course of hearing before the Tribunal if thought fit it ought to have remanded the matter for scrutiny and verification of these certificates in the light of the terms and conditions of the exemption notification. Mr. Rao would submit that the exemption notification has to be construed strictly and if there was no end use certificate, then, the presumption is that the goods have not been supplied in the same form and as parts and accessories but some process is done in relation thereto. The wholesale or blanket remand was unnecessary and in any event, it cannot be directed to fill in any lacuna or defect in the case. In such circumstances the Tribunal''s order is perverse.

Mr. Shroff appearing on behalf of the assessee on the other hand submits that the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. Since the certificates with relation to end use were insisted, the assessee obtained the same from the concerned public funded Research Institutions and on furnishing thereof the Tribunal found that they are in consonance with the conditions prescribed in the notification. Even the end use has been certified as well. For these reasons, the Tribunal rightly allowed the Appeal of the assessee and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Order-in-Original).

With the assistance of the Counsel we have perused the notification and we find that the Tribunal was concerned with only with the correctness of the order dated 24th January, 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II. That order was passed on a remand by the Tribunal in the earlier round. The remand was restricted to the scrutiny and verification of the certificates produced by the assessee. The Commissioner was to verify them and arrive at a conclusion as to whether the equipments/accessories/apparatus as supplied by the appellant has been used by the institution. If it has been used and end user certificate produced, then, the Tribunal rightly held that the assessee would be entitled to the exemption and in terms of the notification. After reproducing the notification once again in para-5 of the impugned order, the Tribunal construed it in para-6 and in para-7 held that the end use certificates certify that the impugned goods are used as parts/accessories, scientific and technical instruments/apparatus. The Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) certificate dated 7th May, 2008 is relied upon and that certifies that the pipes/tubes are used as parts/accessories and for setting up of the Pickling and Passivation Plant and installation of Ventury Scrubber System. If such is the nature of the certificate and the wording thereof being clear and unambiguous the Tribunal rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee and reversed the order of the Commissioner. The Commissioner has not performed the task assigned to it by the Tribunal. His duty was to scrutinize and verify the certificates in the light of the terms of the notification beyond that if the end use was insisted even that end use has been certified and as pointed out in para-7 of the Tribunal''s order. In the above circumstances, this appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. The Tribunal''s order cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on face of the record. We find no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed. No costs.