TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice issued only on 26-9-1990 proposing the change in the classification from Headings 84.28 to 84.31. He found merit in the contention of the appellants that revised classification should be operative only subsequent to 26-9-90 and accordingly ordered the same. We find that there is no cross appeal by the Revenue against the said order. 2. Appeal No. E/111/93 is against the Order-in-Appeal No. 22/92 (G)C.E., dated 25-9-1992, wherein the Commissioner has after considering that there was no dispute by the appellants that the conveyor system was classifiable under heading 8428.00 being mentioned in that heading and parts suitable for use solely or principally with the machine under headings 84.25 to 84.30 were classifiable under he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conveyor system. In the case of B.H.P Engineers cited above, the Tribunal has held that parts of conveyor cleared against an order for conveyor system and when all such parts are cleared under different gate passes over a period for convenience of transportation are required to be classified as conveyor and not as parts of conveyor, though prescribed procedure was not followed. They submitted that in their case all the parts of conveyor system are manufactured by them same entity, having three factories at locations viz Vijayawada, Kondapalli and Visakhapatnam, which are admittedly situated in different municipal areas. They submitted that Board has issued instructions that a corporate entity should be considered as one manufacturer, even t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision of Cotspun India Ltd. as reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) and pleads that the demand should be prospective and as confirmed should be set aside. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions and material on record and find that (a) Three units of the same corporate entity situated in three different municipal limits cannot be considered as the same manufacturer, since Rule 174 provides for registration of every person who manufactures excisable goods therefore three Registrations have to be obtained separately by same company. Since the parts are excisable goods, each manufacturer at different premises is required to take out Excise licence now called as Registration for the manufacture of such parts. The goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the facts of this case. (b) We find that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Narne Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt Ltd. as reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 566 (S.C.) have in para 3 of the reported decision laid down the law on this subject as follows :- The appellant s contention before the Tribunal was that it was only preparing a part and that part is dutiable as a separate part. The appellant however, did the work of assembling. As a result of the work of the appellant a new product known in the market and known under the excise item weigh bride comes into being. The appellant will become a manufacturer of that product and as such liable to duty. That is precisely what the Tribunal found on the facts of the case. The appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding 84.28. The Modvat credit, if any, would be eligible of the duty paid on parts, however, their case of classification of the conveyor system coming into existence at site is not before us. 6. In view of our findings regarding classification under heading 84.31 of the goods being parts of conveyor system, at all the three factories, we now proceed to consider the submissions regarding the confirmation of demands. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 13/91 has held that the classification to be prospective and the same has not been challenged by the Revenue and therefore, has attained finality. In appeal No. E/111/93, the appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No. 22/92, we do not find the order impugned to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner, incharge of Visakhapatnam Division and not Vijayawada Division in the other case which does not induce us to accept the learned advocate s contention that Commissioner (Appeals) order holding the change in the assessment of the Visakhapatnam assessee to be prospective should be applied to change in assessment of the Vijayawada assessee. We, therefore, find no reasons to interfere with the demands as determined against the assessee at Visakhapatnam in Appeal No. E/4855/91-B. 7. In view of our findings hereinabove, we find no reasons to interfere with the classification of the entity to be parts under heading 84.31 as held by the lower authorities and also the demands as confirmed. These two appeals merit rejection, we order acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
