Order
Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President
1. The appellants herein cleared goods namely, Spare Parts along with Rural Automatic Exchange on payment of duty of 15% and M.P. Printers along with RAX System fixed on RAX machine on payment of duty of 15%, but the Department had rejected the benefit of Notification No. 73/90-C.E., dated 20-3-90, as it was not available for these items and the appellants were required to pay duty at the rate of 20% and 25% respectively instead of 15%. Show cause notice was therefore issued to the appellants proposing recovery of differential duty of Rs. 11,87,882.70 and Rs. 2,26,300/- respectively and proposing imposition of penalty. The period covered by the show cause notice is 1-10-94 to 31-3-95. The Assistant Commissioner of Centra] Excise confirmed the demand of Rs. 11,87,882.70 towards maintenance spares and dropped proceedings for recovery of Rs. 2,26,300/- accepting the claim of the appellants that the printer was an integral part of RAX system and that the benefit of Notification No. 73/90 was admissible to RAX system along with the printer. The Revenue went in appeal before the Commissioner, who vide the impugned order, accepted the contention of the Revenue that the printer was not an integral part of RAX system as specified in the Notification but an accessory of telephone RAX and therefore classifiable under heading 85.48 attracting duty at higher rate. Hence this appeal filed by the appellants.
2. We have heard both sides. The appellants submit before us that the goods in question would be entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 56/94-C.E., dated 1-3-94, which covers inter alia “Input/Output Processor”. It is pertinent to note that, by Notification No. 56/94, the requirements if the goods falling under Chapter 85 being specified in the table to Notification No. 73/90 has been watered down by omitting Chapter 85 from Notification 73/90. Therefore, as long as goods are parts of RAX system specified at Sr. No. 13 to Notification No. 56/94, irrespective of where, such parts would fall classifiable they would be entitled to benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 73/90 as amended. However, in the present case, since there is no finding of the authorities below as to whether the item in dispute namely, printer of RAX is input/output processor as claimed by the appellants, we are of the view that the claim of printer as input/output processor is required to be examined afresh by adjudicating authority. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner for fresh decision on the claim of the appellants that the goods in question are covered by Sr. 13 of Notification 73/90 as input/output processor. He shall extend reasonable opportunity to the appellants of being heard in their defence.
3. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.