Final Order No. 201/2002, arising from Appeal No. E/2218/97/Md. Case: Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore Vs Acc Machinery Co. Ltd.. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Final Order No. 201/2002, arising from Appeal No. E/2218/97/Md |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri G.S. Menon, Sdr, and For Respondent: Shri K.R. Natarajan, Advocate. |
| Judges | Shri S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T) |
| Issue | Central Excise |
| Citation | 2004 (165) ELT 201 (Tri. - Chennai) |
| Judgement Date | February 28, 2002 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T) (Oral), (South Zonal Bench At Chennai)
-
This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 263/93 (CBE), dated 28-5-1997 on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that merely because the parts and components which make up the cement making machinery are packed separately and despatched in one or two instalments after a gap of time due to certain unavoidable reasons (such as lack of transport) that would not by itself make them only parts or components of cement making machinery when as per the contract entered into between the appellants the entire cement making machinery has been supplied. The Revenue has therefore, submitted that in the present case, only fabricated item i.e. parts are manufactured and cleared and not the entire machinery consisting of different parts. Since the parts are sent individually they would be classified under respective heading as per Note 2(a) of Section XVI of HSN. The Revenue has further submitted that the stand of the assessee that they have manufactured machinery and cleared in knocked down condition is not sustainable in the light of actual verification of facts of manufacture, as observed by the Assistant Collector, Coimbatore-II Division in his Order-in-Original and what is available for assessment at any given point of time is only parts and at no juncture the entire machinery or equipments is available at the assessee''s factory gate for assessment. Revenue has further taken the ground that though the goods are cleared against order for "complete machinery" at no point of time the complete machinery is available with the manufacturer. The Revenue has referred to the case of TISCO v. UOI referred to by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order that crane was assembled as site in complete manner and then transported in knocked down condition. The Revenue would have accepted the stand of the assessee if the entire machinery was manufactured first and after presenting it for assessment cleared in semi-knocked down or completely knocked down condition. They have further submitted that the cases referred to by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order viz. 1987 (28) E.L.T. 352 and 1989 (40) E.L.T. 23 (Bom.) deals with fabrication of materials at site, but in the present case, as per the contract the raw materials are purchased, parts are manufactured and cleared to site for erection. Further cement making machinery is not manufactured, step by step by fabrication from earth at the site of M/s. Cochin Cements Ltd. They have further submitted that at any point of time only parts are available for assessment and at no juncture entire machinery in completely knocked down or semi-knocked down condition is available. Therefore, the assessee has to pay duty on the parts of cement making machinery and equipments at the rate of 15% ad valorem. In view of above, the Revenue has prayed for setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restoration of the Order-in-Original No. 345/96, dated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Final Order No. A-102/KOL/2008, arising from Appeal No. E/EDM-796/2004. Case: Idicol Piping & Engg. Works Ltd. Vs C.C.E. & C., Bhubaneswar-I. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
...Equipments (I) Ltd. v. C.C. Ex., Mumbai-III; (b) 2002 (150) ELT 283 (Tri. - Kol) - TRF Ltd. v. C.C.Ex., Jamshedpur; (c) 2004 (165) ELT 201 (Tri. - Chennai) - C.C.Ex., Coimbatore v. ACC Machinery Co. (d) 2004 (176) ELT 195 (Tri.-Del.) - Sulzar Flovel Hydro Ltd. v. C.C.Ex., Delhi-II (e) 2006 ......
-
Final Order No. A-102/KOL/2008, arising from Appeal No. E/EDM-796/2004. Case: Idicol Piping & Engg. Works Ltd. Vs C.C.E. & C., Bhubaneswar-I. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
...Equipments (I) Ltd. v. C.C. Ex., Mumbai-III; (b) 2002 (150) ELT 283 (Tri. - Kol) - TRF Ltd. v. C.C.Ex., Jamshedpur; (c) 2004 (165) ELT 201 (Tri. - Chennai) - C.C.Ex., Coimbatore v. ACC Machinery Co. (d) 2004 (176) ELT 195 (Tri.-Del.) - Sulzar Flovel Hydro Ltd. v. C.C.Ex., Delhi-II (e) 2006 ......