ORDER
C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. The issue involved in this appeal is eligibility to exemption under Notification No. 154/86 for the product called “Zero-B” manufactured by the respondents. The notification exempts water filters of a capacity not exceeding 40 litres. The impugned order held that the product is water filter and is eligible for exemption. The appeal of the Revenue contends that the item is a water purifier and, therefore, is not eligible for exemption. Learned SDR submits that exemption is wholly in respect of filters and not in respect of purifiers. He also submits that for the purpose of exemption the criterion for classification is not taken into account.
2. Arguing for the respondents, Shri Joseph Vellapally, Sr. Advocate, submits that the impugned order contains clear finding about the item in question. It was held that the product “Zero-B” appliance is a water filter. In the process of filteration it removes the bacteria from drinking water. The filter, since it removes the bacteria, is also sometimes recognised as water purifiers. The filter is, therefore, a purifying apparatus. Shri Vellapally also submits that the appeal is the result of confusion between the process and the result. Filteration is a process and purification is the result. He submits that it was an absurd proposition to deny the exemption because the item brings about the purification even though the process followed is filteration.
3. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that there is clear finding in the impugned order that the product in question is a filter as it works on the principle of filteration i.e., passing water through a media which filters the water. We find no infirmity in the impugned order. It is confirmed and the appeal of the Revenue is rejected.