2005 (10) TMI 328 - AT - Central Excise

Classification - Valuation - Bought out items - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Procedure in appeal

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of pressure vessels for refinery under Chapter Heading 84.79 or 73.09.
2. Inclusion of the value of bought out items in the assessable value of goods assembled at the site.
3. Classification of TPP deck and facility under Chapter Heading 84.30 or 84.31.

Classification of Pressure Vessels for Refinery:
In appeal E/90/2000, the issue was the classification of pressure vessels for a refinery under Chapter Heading 84.79 or 73.09. The Assistant Commissioner found that the items had fixed internals and were not mechanical devices under Heading 84.79. The Commissioner (Appeals) incorrectly held that there were mechanical devices fixed, leading to a wrong classification. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that the items should be classified under Chapter Heading 73.09, as there were no mechanical devices duly fixed. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was restored, setting aside the impugned order, and appeal E/90/2000 was allowed.

Inclusion of Value of Bought Out Items:
In appeal E/91/2000, the issue was the inclusion of the value of bought out items in the assessable value of goods assembled at the site. The Tribunal clarified that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not rule out the inclusion of bought out items in the assessable value. The jurisdiction to raise a demand, including the value of bought out items, was held to rest with the Assistant Commissioner at Kota, where the assembly took place. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as there was no ground to vest jurisdiction with the Assistant Commissioner at the factory of the respondents.

Classification of TPP Deck and Facility:
Lastly, in appeal E/92/2000, the issue was the classification of TPP deck and facility under Chapter Heading 84.30 or 84.31. The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority did not provide facts and relied on a previous order. As the Order-in-Original detailing the goods was not filed, a correct decision could not be reached. The appeal was dismissed under Rule 11 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, with the Revenue given the liberty to apply for restoration upon filing the adjudication order copy.

This judgment addressed the classification of various items under specific chapter headings and the inclusion of bought out items in the assessable value, providing clarity on the correct classification and jurisdiction for raising demands based on the nature of the goods and assembly location.