Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 112 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of metal rolling mills and its various parts - whether the items, are to be classified as “part of the rolling mills” under Heading No. 8455.90 or the same are to be classified under Heading No. 84.28 - Held that:- The respondent manufacture rolling mills and their parts. During the period of dispute while Heading No. 84.55 covered metal rolling mills and rolls thereof, sub-heading No. 8455.10 covered “all goods other than parts” and sub-heading No. 8455.90 covered “parts”. All these items are not the rollers through which the metal passes but are the equipments for lifting, handling, loading and unloading of the materials which are in the nature of auxiliary equipment, essential for operation of rolling mills - “charging and discharging machines for hot strips rolling mills” which are also in the nature of auxiliary equipment essential for operation of rolling mills, would be classifiable as “part of the rolling mills” under sub-heading No. 8455.90 and not only a civil appeal filed by the assessee against this judgment was dismissed by the Apex Court vide judgment reported in [2003 (3) TMI 704 - Supreme Court of India], but the review petition against the dismissal of civil appeal was also dismissed vide judgment reported in [2003 (10) TMI 633 - Supreme Court of India]. In view of this, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, reported in [2000 (7) TMI 67 - SUPREME Court], the Apex Court’s order in case of Beekay Engineering & Castings Ltd. (2002 (4) TMI 546 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI) affirming the Tribunal judgment becomes a binding precedent. Therefore, we hold that the items mentioned above would be correctly classifiable under sub-heading No. 8455.90 as parts of rolling mills and not under heading No. 8428.00/8428.90 as held by the Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is, therefore, not correct as the same is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court on this issue. - Decided in favour of Revenue.
|