2004 (97) ECC 247 (Tri)

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

South Zonal Bench -- Chennai

Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) and Shri Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T)

Ambit Infotech Pvt. Ltd.

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry

Application No. E/PD/121/2004 and E/EH/128/2004 in E/254/2004

Misc. Order No. 339/2004
Stay Order No. 233/2004, dt. 10.6.2004, Certified on 17.6.2004

Exemption (C. Excise)

Notification No. 97-CE dt. 1.3.1997 -- Appellant supplied computer to university without payment of duty, claiming the benefit of notification -- Later on if university registrar withdrew the essentiality certificate with retrospective fact cannot amount to deny the benefit of the notification -- Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

PRESENT :

Shri M. Somasundaram, Cons. for the appellant.

Shri A. Jayachandran, DR for the respondent.

Per : P.G. Chacko (Oral)

We have two applications before us, one seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the amount of duty of Rs. 2,03,904 and the other praying for early disposal of the appeal.

2. The demand of duty to the aforesaid extent has been confirmed against the appellants on the basis of a finding that they were not eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 10/97-CE dated 1.3.97 in respect of computers manufactured and supplied to a college affiliated to Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University. The said notification had granted full exemption from payment of Central Excise duty, to computers on condition that the goods should be supplied to a recognised university, public-funded research institution, or any IIT or the IISC, Bangalore or any REC and further that an essentiality certificate from the head of the institution should be produced. The appellants had supplied the computers to the aforenamed university without payment of duty, claiming the benefit of the notification. At that time, they had also produced an essentiality certificate issued by the Registrar of the University. In other words, they fulfilled the conditions under the notification. Later on, it so happened that the University Registrar withdrew the essentiality certificate with retrospective effect. This became handy for the department to demand duty on the computers at normal rate by denying the benefit of notification. Thus a show-cause notice was issued to the appellants and this notice has eventually led to the proceedings before us. Ld. Consultant for the appellants submits that the subsequent withdrawal of the essentiality certificate by the University is not a valid ground for denial of the benefit of the notification inasmuch as, at the time of clearance of the goods, they had fulfilled all the conditions under the notification. This submission, for the present purpose, seems to be impressive. We also take into account the Consultant's submission that duty was paid at the rate of 8% of the invoice price of the computers as required under Rule 57CC of the CE Rules, 1944. Accordingly, we grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the duty demanded.

3. The other application for early disposal of the appeal does not bring out any valid ground. The amount of duty involved is a little over Rs. 2.00 lakhs only. There is no penalty on the appellants. They do not have a meritorious case for early disposal of the appeal. This application is therefore rejected. The appeal will arise in its turn.

­----------------------