Excise Appeal No. EDM-796/04 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 113/BBSR-I/04 Dated 20.04.2004 Passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneswar). Case: Idicol Piping and Engineering Works Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Excise Appeal No. EDM-796/04 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 113/BBSR-I/04 Dated 20.04.2004 Passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneswar) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: C.R. Das, Adv. and For Respondents: N.C. Chowdhury, J.D.R. |
| Judges | Chittaranjan Satapathy (T) and D.N. Panda (J), Members |
| Issue | General Interpretative Rules - Rule 2 |
| Citation | 2008 (128) ECC 173, 2008 (154) ECR 173, 2008 (226) ELT 147 |
| Judgement Date | January 16, 2008 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T), (Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata)
-
Heard both sides. The appellants received a Purchase Order from M/s. BHEL for manufacturing and supply of Turbine Integral Piping Nine Systems, the details of which are in the Purchase Order dated 21.11.94. This Purchase Order gives specification for two of such Systems. It is the case of the appellants that they have supplied the impugned goods against this Purchase Order and hence, it is their submission that the goods which have been supplied should be treated as two integrated auxiliary plants for boilers and they may be extended the lower rate of duty @10% under sub-heading 8404.10. The Department, however, held the impugned goods supplied by the appellants as parts of auxiliary plants and classified the same under subheading 8404.90 chargeable to duty @15% and hence, has confirmed the differential duty-demand on the appellants under the impugned Order.
-
Shri C.R. Das, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the two integrated auxiliary plants for which the Purchase Order was placed with the appellants were very big in size and therefore, those could not have been supplied in one consignment and therefore, the same has been supplied in several consignments, but against one Purchase Order. In this context, he cites the following decisions of the Tribunal to claim that the goods in question should be treated as a complete auxiliary plant and classified under sub-heading 8404.10 attracting 10% of duty:
(a) Flat Products Equipments (I) Ltd. v. C.C.Ex, Mumbai-III;
(b) TRF Ltd. v. C.C.Ex., Jamshedpur;
(c) C.C.Ex., Coimbatore v. ACC Machinery Co. Ltd.;
(d) 2004 (176) ELT 195 (Tri.-Del.) Sulzar Flovel Hydro Ltd. v. C.C.Ex., Delhi-II
(e) 2006 (202) ELT 389 (SC) Boving Fouress Ltd. v. C.C. Ex, Chennai;
-
Heard the learned J.D.R., Shri N.C. Chowdhury who supports the impugned Order.
After hearing both sides and perusal of the case records including the cited decisions, we find that the impugned goods in question have been despatched from the factory of the appellants in 26 (twenty-six) consignments over a period of nearly one and a half years during 18.7.95 to 4.12.96. It is clear from the Despatch Details that parts of KG-9 and KG-10 weighing various quantities have been supplied over this long period and the appellants have also indicated the amounts separately for each consignment. In this connection, we have also perused the relevant General...
To continue reading
Request your trial