ORDER
U.L. Bhat, President
1. The dispute in the appeal is whether Digital Automatic Exchanges DATE-36 manufactured and cleared by ‘ the appellant would attract concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 73/90. The Assistant Collector and Commissioner (Appeals) held against the applicability of the Notification and confirmed the demand of differential duty, since the appellant had wrongly availed the benefit of Notification. The manufacturer being aggrieved has filed this appeal.
2. At page 25 of the paper book is a copy of the detailed purchase order issued by the Department of Tele-communications, Govt. of India to the appellant. The order relates to 14 units of DATE-36 Port exchanges along with MDF and 14 units of Kits of Spares. At page 32 is a copy of the Notification No. 73/90. The table to the Notification enumerates 13 items. Item No. 1 is on ‘Rural Automatic Exchanges’ (up to 512 Ports). The Notification exempted goods specified in the table from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon in excess of amount calculated @ 15%. The lower authorities held that appellant failed to prove that the subject exchanges cleared by the appellant would fall within the description “Rural Automatic Exchanges (upto 512 Ports)”. There is no dispute that the expression ‘port’ is used to indicate the capacity of the exchange to handle calls. There is also no dispute that there is no separate exchange which can be used only in rural areas and which can be used in urban areas. Exchanges of smaller capacity are regarded as suitable to be set up in rural areas and are called “Rural Automatic Exchanges”. The Notification took care to indicate the dividing line as upto 512 ports. It is not correct to say that the appellant did not indicate the capacity of the exchanges cleared.
The Purchase Order itself indicates the capacity as 36 Ports, which is definitely much below the limit of 512 Ports mentioned in Sr. No. 1 of the Table to the Notification. The department has not relied on any material to show that Automatic Exchange with capacity of 36 Ports cannot be a rural automatic exchange as contemplated in Sr. No. 1 of the Table to the Notification. The Department has such a duty in view of the specific description given in the Notification as upto 512 Ports and the purchase order indicates the capacity as 36 ports.
3. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the lower authorities were in error in denying the appellant benefit of Notification. It is not disputed that if the appellant was entitled for the benefit of Notification, there was no differential duty to pay.
4. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.