ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President
1. The issue in dispute in the present appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad, is eligibility to the benefit of Notification No. 51/93-C.E., dt. 28-2-1993 at serial No. 20 of the Table to the notification for fabric infeed device panel manufactured by the respondents herein.
2. None appears for the respondents, hence we heard the Id. SDR and perused the records.
3. Serial No. 20 of the table to Notification No. 51/93 covers goods falling under Chapter Heading 85.43 and the description shown is “machinery used for the production of a commodity”. It is the contention of the Revenue that the item in dispute is not complete machinery in itself, it is only a part of machinery and since only complete machinery used for production of commodity is entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of duty under the relevant notification, the item in dispute is ineligible to the benefit thereof.
4. We find that the lower appellate authority has not recorded any finding as to whether the item in dispute is complete unit of machinery itself and has only followed an earlier order of adjudication – Order-in-Original No. 51/93/AC/DEM dt. 15-12-93 by which the benefit under the Notification was extended to fabric infeed device, on finding it to be a complete machinery. We also note that the respondents were not in a position to substantiate their stand that the fabric infeed device panel is a separate unit by itself and that it is not a spare of fabric infeed device, they have also not proved before the Assistant Commissioner that it is a machinery used for the production of a commodity as per the condition prescribed at serial No. 20 of the table to the notification. Since the respondents have not substantiated their claim to the benefit of the Notification with reference to any material, such as technical literature etc. that the fabric infeed device panel is the complete unit in itself, and since the earlier order relied upon by the lower appellate authority extends the benefit to a complete unit namely fabrics infeed device, we hold that the Revenue is correct in its contention that the benefit of concessional rate of duty is not available to the respondents as per Serial No. 20 of the table to the Notification No. 51/93, and we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.