9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods manufactured by the appellants. 3. The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original confirmed the classification of the product manufactured by the appellants under sub-heading 8302.00, while confirming the demand amounting to Rs. 2,28,356/- as against the classification claimed by the appellants under Chapter sub-heading 8443.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Whereas in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has approved the classification of goods in question under Chapter Heading 8548 and directed recalculation of the demand of duty appropriately as per law. 4. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Battery Charging equipment AC/DC Distribution Board and M.S. Cubicle falling under C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which mounting of base metal and therefore, the classification under Chapter Heading 83.02 is totally ruled out. In fact it would have been appropriate to consider the classification under Chapter Heading 95.48 as electrical parts of machinery or apparatus not otherwise specified or included. Since the M.S. Cubicle by itself is not capable of functioning individually either for production of commodity or otherwise, its classification under 85.43 is totally ruled out. 6. The evidence on record do suggest that M.S. Cubicle is manufactured strictly with the intended specific technical requirement, which are varying according to the uses of it in the production of battery charger (under Chapter Heading 85.04), AC and DC Distribution Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding itself would become redundant. In the case of M/s. Graver & Weil (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai [2004 (174) E.L.T. 487 (Tri.-Mumbai)], it is held that Electroplating plant and equipment, unquestionably classifiable under Heading 85.43 of the Central Excise Tariff, covered by the term 'machinery used for production of a commodity' as used in Notification No. 56/95-C.E. 8. The last contention of the appellants is that the Commissioner has erred in fixing the classification of goods and ordering recalculation of duty deviating from the original Show Cause Notice basing on the revised Show Cause Notice. They rely upon the decision reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 81 (Tribunal) in the case of M/s. ESPI Industries Chemical v. Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
