ORDER
V.K. Ashtana, Member (T)
1. This is a Revenue appeal against the order in appeal No. 15/95 dated 13.01.1995, wherein the Collector (Appeals) has given benefit of duty exemption Notification No. 78/90 dated 20.03.1990 to the product “Pilot Valve”.
2. Heard Shri M. Kunhikannan, learned DR who submits that the learned Collector (Appeals) has erred in holding that Notification does not exclude other non-mentioned items for forming part of the system. He submits that the Notification exempts only complete system and since pilot valve is not mentioned therein specifically, therefore, that cannot be exempted as they are not pulse valve.
3. Heard Smt. L. Maithili, learned Counsel for the respondents who submits that as per the technical write-up of pulse and pilot valves, produced before the lower authority and copy of which is produced before us and which is dated 30.01.1995, it is submitted that both pilot valve and pulse valve are parts of pollution control system. One is fitted along with the system i.e. it is integral to it while the other i.e. pilot valve is fitted in remote location. Both the valves are connected by solenoid but whereas in pulse valve solenoid is built to the main valve body, in pilot valve, solenoid remains away from the valve which is located at distant part of the system. The learned Counsel submits both these are parts of pollution control equipment, therefore, that would be covered under the said Notification in terms of Board’s order No. 35/11/94 dated 07.09.1994 which is issued under Section 37B of the Act and which reads as under:
“(a) benefit of Notification No. 78/90-C.E., dated 20.03.1990 as amended will be available to all machinery, components, equipments, instruments, apparatus etc. even when these are cleared in CKD and SKD conditions from the factory of manufacture provided that evidence is produced that goods cleared form part of a complete pollution control equipment/system and the evidence is also produced for supply of such equipment/system to the buyer.
(b) An officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Environment and Forest certifies in each case to the effect that the goods manufactured are intended for pollution control purpose.”
4. It is now well established that such orders are binding on the lower authorities. Secondly, as far as pulse valves are concerned, Notification itself clearly mentions that the same is exempted and the similar decision was given by the Tribunal in their final order No. 265/98 dated 04.02.1998 in the appellants own case wherein also the Board’s order had been considered by the Tribunal. There is no dispute that certificate of the concerned technical authority mentioned in the Board’s order has not been obtained.
5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and the record of the case. As far as pulse valve is concerned, the same is clearly mentioned in the said Notification in question and therefore, both the original authority as well as the first appellate authority have correctly given the benefit of this Notification to it. On the other hand the Revenue has not lead any evidence to show that it is not a part of the Pollution control system.
6. As far as Pilot valve is concerned, a perusal of the technical write up shows that it is also a valve which is actuated by electrical command, through the solenoid and when such command is received, the valve sends the pulses of air into the filtration system. Therefore, it is nothing but pulse valve with solenoid portion being fixed at different location than the valve itself. Merely keeping solenoid at a different location from the valve body will not change the nature and functioning of the valve which remains the same i.e. introduces pulses of air as required. Secondly the Board’s order noted above issued under Section 37B of the Act clearly directs all the lower authorities to allow exemption contained in this Notification for all parts of the Pollution control system if certificate is issued by the specified authority therein. There is no dispute that such certificate is not on record. Since Section 37B order is binding on the lower authorities, therefore, the Revenue appeal runs contrary to the same.
7. In view of the aforesaid analysis and findings, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned which compels us to interfere with the same. The appeal is therefore rejected.