Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2006 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (12) TMI 272 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - Lifts/Escalators - classified under Chapter tariff heading 8428 - HELD THAT:- While the Interpretative Rules are applied in determining the classification under Central Excise Law certain prior conditions are required to be applied. Under the Customs Law, any product which is entering India requires to be classified. But under Excise Law only such goods which first satisfy the criteria of manufacture are to be classified. There is finding that parts cleared in those cases constitute full machinery but in appellant’s case, the specific finding of the Hon’ble High Court that the lift/escalator comes into existence only on the customer’s end, has not been controverted. In the case relating to M/s. Vinar Systems Ltd. [2001 (2) TMI 200 - CEGAT, KOLKATA] there is a clear finding that parts cleared from the appellants’ factory would constitute a complete material, handling equipment in a CKD condition. In the case relating to M/s. Flat Products Equipments Ltd. [1999 (8) TMI 270 - CEGAT, MUMBAI], there is a clear claim by the party that the entire material required for manufacture of Rolling Mils come into their factory for preassembly, inspection and testing which has been accepted by the Tribunal. In the case relating to M/s. Vishwa Industries [1998 (9) TMI 239 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA], there is a finding that the items were cleared in CKD condition as complete system for the purpose of transportation. In the case relating to BHP Engg.[2000 (3) TMI 92 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI], the, dispute relates to non-observance of procedure prescribed in Ministry’s letter dated 10-3-93 in respect of piecemeal clearance of all parts for a complete conveyor. Further, the very same components while cleared by the appellant for maintenance purpose are being assessed under Chapter 8431. The classification cannot change merely because they were supplied under a single contract. This view has been supported in the case of CCE v. Kone Elevators India Ltd.[2001 (6) TMI 142 - CEGAT, CHENNAI]. Thus, Commissioner’s finding on classification and demand of duty cannot be faulted. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
|