The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the demand of customs duty for clearing Agro waste-fired boilers on the ground of the genuine disclosure of all the relevant documents by the assessee.
Thermodyne Technologies Pvt. Ltd, the respondent-assessee having different units in and around, Ranipet Tamil Nadu. Each unit was registered with the Central Excise Department separately for the manufacture of excisable goods and the different units are engaged in the manufacture of various types of boilers and boiler components falling under Chapter 84 of the First Schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
The revenue appealed against the order passed by the original authority for quashing the demand for customs duty for an extended period.
M.N. Bharathi, the counsel for the assessee contended that the manufacturer of the boiler was the assessee’s company, and registration was taken for the different premises only as per the requirement of Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules,2017 and the supply and clearance from each unit was made by quoting the same purchase order by all units.
Further submitted that the manufacture and clearance from different units/premises was only due to constraints of space and logistics and the assessee had availed the exemption from payment of excise duty in terms of notification and submitted all the relevant documents to the original authority and thus the assessee was eligible for the exemption.
Rudra Pratap Singh, the counsel for the department contended that as per the invoices, the goods cleared were parts intended for the erection of boilers and it was for the assessee to prove and substantiate by evidence.
Also stated that the assessee had failed to produce evidence as to how the goods cleared would constitute a complete boiler from a particular manufacturing unit.
The Bench observed that there was no material to hold that there was a difference in the activity of manufacture and clearance carried out by the assessee company and the assessee was eligible for exemption from payment of duty in terms of the notification.
The two-member bench comprising Sulekha Beevi (Judicial) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical) upheld the order of the original authority and quashed the demand of duty for a normal period while dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
