TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant. Therefore, from the Bombay Lift Rules, 1958, itself, it can be seen that what has been supplied by the appellant does not constitute a lift either in an incomplete form nor does it have the essential character of a lift. They are only components and parts of a lift. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that what they have supplied is a lift in incomplete form having essential character of the lift totally fails. The items supplied do not constitute a lift falling under CETH 84.28 either in an incomplete form or having the essential character. They can only be considered as parts and components falling under CETH 84.31 and we hold accordingly. The concept of essential character can also be seen from certain examples. A motor vehicle chassis may be capable of auto-movement. But can it carry a passenger or goods without the body. The answer would be a clear ‘NO’. Therefore, can we say that a motor vehicle chassis can be classified as a motor vehicle. The answer will be in the negative. In fact the tariff itself recognizes this fact and has provided a separate heading for automobile chassis. Let us consider another example. A mono-block pump set consists of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention that the duty demand should have been confirmed only after the finalization of the price lists. - Matter remanded back. As regards the question of penalty, the same would not arise inasmuch as the issue involved relates to classification of the goods manufactured by the appellant. It is a settled position in law that in respect of classification disputes, where the assessee has classified the product as per his understanding and the department proposes to classify differently, the question of imposing any penalty would not arise. Therefore, imposition of penalty on the appellant is not warranted in the facts of the present case. Parts and components of the lift machinery, supplied by the appellant, merit classification under CETH 84.31 as it stood at the relevant time. The duty demand period for the period August, 1986 to August, 1990 is clearly time-barred and accordingly we set aside the same. For the period from 1-9-1990 onwards, inasmuch as the price lists and the consequent assessments were provisional, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for finalization of prices and thereafter, quantifying the duty demand liable to be paid by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Central Excise Tariff. However, while such parts and components of lift machinery were cleared to the site for maintenance of lifts under separate Maintenance Contracts, the appellant was paying Central Excise duty @ 20% under CETH 8431.00 as parts. The appellant was, therefore, issued a show cause notice, dated 3-4-1991 seeking to recover a Central Excise duty of ₹ 9,62,614/- on the clearances for the period 1-9-1990 to 28-2-1991 on the allegation that it had misdeclared the classification of the parts and components of lift as machinery under CETH, 8428.00 instead of CETH 8431.00. The notice also sought to impose penalty under Rule 173Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Immediately thereafter, another show cause notice, dated 5-4-1991 was issued to the appellant seeking to recover a total Central Excise duty of ₹ 32,63,415.59 covering the period April, 1986 to August, 1990 on the allegation that it had suppressed the fact that it had manufactured parts and components which constituted only 50% to 70% of the complete lift machinery. The notice also sought to impose penalty on it under Rule 173Q of the said Rules, 1944. Thereafter, 10 more periodical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion gear-box, which, in turn is equipped with the Friction Sheave (or pulley) along which the suspension ropes are deployed. A Break Unit is attached and the Machine Unit may include, depending upon the specifications, a Digital Tachometer (which measures the car speed and position to infinite dismal tolerances) Flywheel and Diverter Sheave. (ii) A microprocessor based Drive Controller may be used for high-speed lifts to ensure smooth travel and accurate levelling. (iii) The Lift Controller, which may include a Micro-Electronics Logic Controller, saves as the nerve-centre of the lift or group of lifts. It receives signals from the following items so as to activate the machine unit and to direct the overall operation and movement of the lift car so as to respond to routine passenger commands and to maximise traffic handling, minimise waiting time, minimise energy consumption and conform to safety standards : (a) Magnetic Shaft Information Devices or Floor Selector (b) Car Control Panel (c) Landing Push-Button Boxes (d) Digital Tachometer (e) Gate Locks (f) Shaft Switches, etc. (iv) The Over Speed Governor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and not on the bought out goods with which the department did not agree. However, on 15-3-1980 the appellants filed a revised classification list classifying the manufactured items only under the erstwhile Tariff Item 68. Though the appellants had pursued the matter, the classification lists were not approved by the proper officer. By a letter, dated 26-3-1981, the appellants informed the Assistant Commissioner that all bought out items, on which appropriate duty had already been paid, would be cleared to the site from the appellant s lift stores under the appellant s own challans and that manufactured items would be cleared under Gate passes on payment of duty and that on completion of the installation of lift, duty would be paid on the full contract value including erection, commissioning and service charges, etc, minus the duty already paid on manufactured/produced components/parts, if any. In November, 1981, the appellants became aware of the order of the Government of India in the matter of Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. [1981 (8) E.L.T. 720 (G.O.I.)], whereby it was held that elevators (lifts) and escalators erected and installed at site would not be considered as goods a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complete or finished article. It shall also be taken to include a reference to that article complete or finished, (or falling to be classified as complete of finished by virtue of this rule), presented unassembled or disassembled. Thus, on a true and correct interpretation of Rule 2(a), an item in a heading also refers to an incomplete item provided it has the essential character of the complete or finished article. The Rule does not state that the unfinished article must be essentially the finished article. It uses the words essential character . Oxford English Dictionary, 11th Edition, page 238, defines the word character , inter alia, as the distinctive nature of something. The Webster s 3rd New International Dictionary, page 376 defines the word character , inter alia, distinctive quality and main or essential nature . (8) Basically, a lift essentially has to fulfill the following : (i) Moving people up and down. This is done by the Machine Unit. (ii) The aforesaid up-and-down movement has to be done safely. This is done by the break unit, the speed governor, the weighted pulley, the limit switches and the car door drive mechanism. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing No. 8409, 8431, 8448, 8466, 8473, 8503, 8522, 8529 or 8538 as appropriate or, failing that, in heading 84.87 or 85.48. 4. Where a machine (including a combination of machines) consists of individual components (whether separate or interconnected by piping, by transmission devices, by electric cables or other devices) intended to contribute together to a clearly defined function covered by one of the headings in Chapter 84 or Chapter 85, then the whole falls to be classified in heading appropriate to that function. 5. For the purposes of these Notes, the expression machine means any machine, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, or appliance cited in the headings of Chapter 84 or 85. (10) It is well settled that for the purposes of Central Excise Law, lifts are not taxable as they come into existence only as a part of immovable property. What is, therefore, taxable under Heading 84.28 is lifting machinery and not lifts. When Heading 84.28 says, for example lifts, escalators, conveyors and telefrics ; what is meant is such lifting, handling, loading or unloading machinery for lifts, escalators, conveyors and teleferics (cable car systems). The heading cannot and d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce weights. The control, stopping, safety, etc, equipment, whether or not electrical, is also classified in this heading provided it is presented with a lift itself. Presented means given . The Explanatory Notes make a distinction between the machinery/components forming part of the initial assembly of a lift and machinery/components used for replacement or spare parts. The machinery/components forming part of the initial assembly of lifting machinery would be classifiable under Heading 84.28 whilst machinery/components used for replacement or spare parts would be covered under Heading 84.31. (12) The appellants, therefore, filed a revised classification list effective from 1-3-1986 classifying (i) lift machinery/sub-assemblies/ components manufactured by them under Heading 84.28; and (ii) parts suitable for use solely or principally with lift machinery under Heading 84.31. This classification list was approved. With effect from 1-3-1987 a revised classification list was filed classifying (i) lifting machinery/components used in the execution of works contracts for lift installation under Heading 84.28 and (ii) parts and accessories of lift machinery/components ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod after August, 1990 were provisionally assessed and have till date remained provisionally assessed, since there being no sale of the lifting machinery, the value of the lifting machinery had to be determined in accordance with Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules, 1975 (upto June, 2000) and thereafter, Rule 11 read with Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, 2000 which provide that where excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are used or consumed by him or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of the articles, the value shall be based on the cost of production or manufacture including profits, if any, which the assessee would have normally earned on the sale of such goods. The petitioner s Cost Accountants had determined the actual cost of production and profit for each year and it was noticed that the petitioners had paid duty by taking into consideration much higher cost of production and profit. A statement showing the price lists and assessments that are provisional after August, 1990 is annexed. In March, 1991, the Range Superintendent requested for certain information and certain documents which were submitted by the appellants vide letter dated 16-3-1991 along with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inion of Professor Menon that the principal function of regulated or controlled lifting is fulfilled by the Lift Controller, the Digital Tachometer, the Drive Controller and the Machine Unit. These are all manufactured by appellants. These are 30 items in all. These 30 items of lifting machinery/subassemblies/components constitute a lift in an incomplete or unassembled form. They have the essential character of a lift and are known and understood in the trade as lift machinery. Professor Menon has also set out in his affidavit the various parts and components which are going into the manufacture of such lift machinery, with their part numbers. The lift machinery when they are cleared under invoices are not cleared under any part numbers. It is submitted that quite unlike a complete assembled product, for example a window air conditioner, which is cleared from a factory as one unit, the various items of lifting machinery/lifting systems are assembled together in the lift room and the lift shaft of a building. The lifts that are installed by the appellants are predominantly used for vertical transportation of human beings, and therefore, apart from the Machine Unit, i.e., Prime Mover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f import of motor vehicle parts in CKD form along with a minor portion of Australian components, assembly of cars was undertaken. It was held that the imported components would constitute a car inasmuch as they had the essential character of a car, applying the provisions of Rule 2(a) of the interpretative rules. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions of the Tribunal : (i) Vinar Systems Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta [2001 (131) E.L.T. 578 (T)]; (ii) Vishwa Industrial Co. (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta [1999 (107) E.L.T. 774 (T)]; and (iii) Flat Products Equipments (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-III [2000 (115) E.L.T. 629 (T)] In these decisions, this Tribunal had held that if parts of a machinery are cleared over a period of time, where the contract is for supply of the machinery, and the parts supplied taken together had the essential character of the machinery, then the goods cleared has to be classified as machinery only and not as parts. (18) Without prejudice to the aforesaid, it is submitted that the assessments for the period August, 1990 onwards till date are provisional. No demand could therefore have been made under Section 11A of the Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lift. This is untenable. The appellants had been manufacturing lift machinery since 1975 and there has been no significant change. There has been continuous interaction and correspondence between the appellants and the Department since 1978. The classification lists had been approved right up to 1991-92. The departmental officers have visited the factory and observed the manufacturing process. The documents on record show that there was no suppression whatsoever and that the Department was fully aware of the entire facts. The Commissioner has not dealt with the specific allegations raised in the show cause notice but has merely purported to deal with the appellant s submission that the classification lists having been approved, there was no suppression. It is clear from what has been set out in the appeal that the Department was fully aware of all the facts. The extended period of limitation cannot be invoked when classification lists had been approved and the Department is fully aware of all facts as then there can be no suppression of facts leave alone suppression with intent to evade duty. This is clear from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally with the lift machinery would be classifiable under Heading 84.31. (iv) Admittedly, the appellant manufactured about 30 items of the Lifting Machinery which are (i) Machine Unit, (ii) Brake Unit, (iii) Control Board (or Controller), (iv) Car Counterweight Guide Shoe Assembly, (v) Floor Selector, (vi) Speed Governing Assy., (vii) Safety Gear Assy., (viii) Carriage Assy., (ix) Levelling Vane with Bracket Assy., (x) U Sheave Assy., (xi) Floor Sensor Assy., (xii) Sprocket Assy., (xiiia) CP Boxes Assy., (xiiib) LP Boxes Assy., (xiiic) PI Boxes Assy., (xiiid) OLWD Indicator Boxes Assy., (xiv) Gate Lock Assy., (xv) Shaft Information Assy., (xvi) Door Drive Unit Assy., (xvii) Top Track Assy., (xviii) Retiring Cam Assy., (xix) Hanger Plate Assy., (xx) Divertor Pulley Assy., (xxi) Main Limit Switch Assy., (xxii) Reed Switch Assy., (xxiii) PCB Assy. for Control Board, (xxiv) Release Lever Assy., (xxv) PCB Box Assy for OLWD, (xxvi) Junction Box Assy. (xxvii) Tension Device for Speed Governor Floor Selector. (v) According to the appellant, these items, when put together, would give the essential character of the lift in terms of Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xxxi) Weighted Pully for Speed Governor, etc. These bought out parts components are also very essential. Without these essential parts components, construction of a complete lift is just not possible. (ix) Admittedly, the manufactured parts components of the lifting machinery were cleared to the site of installation over a period of time for construction of the lift. It is a settled position of law that the goods have to be assessed in the form in which they are presented for assessment and classification. Needless to say, in the present case, the goods were presented for assessment and classification at time of clearance from the factory only as parts and components of the lifting machinery. Therefore, they have to be assessed as parts only. Consequently, Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules will have no application to this case. Rule 2(a) would be applicable only when all the components which are intended to make a final product are presented at the same time for the purpose of clearance from the factory. Paras 11 12 of the afore-cited judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in Sony India s case may be usefully referred to and relied upon in this regard. (x) It ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nents leaving the factory in the condition in which they are removed. Thus, if together they can be regarded as lifts in unassembled/disassembled condition or having the essential character of lifts, they would be assessed under heading 84.28, otherwise such parts and components would be assessed under heading 84.31. (ii) . (xiii) On a plain reading of the reproduced portion of the Circular, it is very difficult to accept the contention of the appellant that the parts and components manufactured and cleared by it from the factory over a period of time would have the essential character of lifts. From the Circular, it is very clear that if all the parts together are removed from the factory, only then they can be regarded as lifts in un-assembled/dis-assembled condition or having the essential character of the lifts. The Circular does not envisage that if the parts and the components of lifts are removed from the factory over a period of time, they will have the essential character of lifts. Therefore, the Board s Circular is not relevant for the present purpose. Consequently, the suggestion that the matter may be referred to the Larger Bench does not merit any accepta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Lines . Rolling Mills were classifiable under sub-heading 8544.10, while their parts were classifiable under sub-heading 8455.90 carrying higher rate of duty. Similarly, galvanizing lines were classifiable under sub-heading 8479.10, while their parts were classifiable under sub-heading 8479.90 carrying higher rate of duty. Under contracts with the customers, the appellant was required to supply complete rolling mills and galvanizing lines. However, because of heavy weight and complex nature of the machinery, these were cleared in parts separately for the sake of convenience of transport and installation. The claim of the appellant that the goods cleared were complete machines classifiable under sub-heading 10 was accepted by the Tribunal as against the Department s classification as parts under sub-heading 90. The facts of this case have, therefore, no application to the facts of the case on hand. IV. Ld. Sr. Counsel also cited a decision of the Australian Administrative Tribunal in the case of Renault (Wholesale) Pty. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs. In that case, certain motor vehicle parts were imported from France for assembly with some locally produced parts. The dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any (India) Ltd. v. CCE - 2007 (208) E.L.T. 114 (T) and CCE v. Kone Elevators - 2001 (138) E.L.T. 635 (T) where the Hon ble Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the manufactured items would be classifiable under Heading 84.31. Merely, because the lifting machinery manufactured by the appellants form part of the lift to be erected at site, their clearance are not in the form of parts falling under heading 84.31 as erroneously contended by the Department and held by this Hon ble Tribunal in the Otis Elevator case (supra). The interpretation placed by this Hon ble Tribunal in the Otis case on Headings 84.28 and 84.31 render Heading 84.28 otiose. On a correct interpretation Heading 84.28 will cover items of lifting machinery cleared for the setting up of a lift provided they have the essential character . Heading 84.31 will cover only parts cleared for repair or maintenance. The contention in Otis case that Otis was clearing parts and therefore are classifiable under Heading 84.31 renders Heading 84.28 nugatory and otiose and does not take into account the 1st part of Rule 2(a). The matter, therefore, deserves to be referred to a Larger Bench of this Hon ble Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisionally under Rule 9B and the provisions of the said rules shall apply for recovery of deficiency in or refund of excess duty. (4) Copies of the bond, bank guarantees, communication dated 16-10-2001, 17-9-2001 and 15-10-2001 and the price lists. Accordingly it is prayed that the submissions made by the Revenue are both factually and legally incorrect and therefore, the appeal should be allowed. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. 6.1 The main question for consideration in this appeal is whether parts and components manufactured and supplied by the appellant, M/s. Bharat Bijlee Ltd. to their buyers would constitute a lift classifiable under CETH 84.28 or they would merit classification under CETH 84.31 as parts suitable for use solely or principally with the lift machinery. The competing entries as they stood at the relevant time are re-produced below :- Heading No. Sub-heading No. Description Rate of duty 84.28 8428.00 Other lifting, handling, loading machinery (for example, lifts, escalators, conveyors, teleferics) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... because simple grammar requires it. No greater meaning therefore can be attached to the different prepositions used preceding the different clauses. The ratio of the above decision squarely applies to the facts of the case before us. The use of the preposition with was due to the requirement of grammar and nothing else. According to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, one of the meanings of the word with (which accords here with the context) is part of the same whole . In other words, the phrases parts of machinery and parts suitable for use with the machinery convey the same meaning. Therefore, we do not find much substance in this argument put forth by the appellant. 6.3 As regards the reliance placed on Note 4 to Section XVI, the said note states that where a machine (including a combination of machines) consists of individual components (whether separate or interconnected by piping, by transmission devices, by electric cables or by other devices) intended to contribute together to a clearly defined function covered by one of the headings of Chapter 84 or 85, then the whole falls to be classified in the heading appropriate to that function. From the words employed, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notes it is clear that the primary components of a lift are - (1) winch and cable, (2) passenger cage or goods platform, (3) vertical guide bars, (4) counter-balance weights, and (5) control, stopping and safety equipment. In the case before us, from the schematic diagram submitted, it is clear that the appellant does not supply winch and cable, passenger cage or goods platform, vertical guide bars and counter-balance weights. What the appellant has supplied comes under the category of control, stopping and safety equipment consisting of electric motor, brake assembly, hoisting motor and machine unit, speed governor and weighted pulley and the controller. In addition, main limit switch, car guide shoe, weighted pulley for speed governor, shaft information assembly, car push button box, position indicator and landing push button box have been supplied over a period of time. These various elements which have been manufactured and supplied do not provide the essential character of a lift which at least should have passenger cage or goods platform and winch and cable mechanism for movement of the lift. It also does not have the vertical guide bars, which guides the movement of the lift ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. Therefore, the goods supplied by the appellant can be considered only as parts suitable for use solely or principally with the lift machinery, meriting classification under CETH 84.31. 6.8 Further, from the technical literature down loaded from the web site of the Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Hong Kong, it is seen that the major lift components are (i) Prime mover (Electric Machine or Hydraulic Pump), (ii) lift car (car frame, the car itself), (iii) counterweight (if used), (iv) guide rails, (v) entrances/doors, (vi) safety gear and over speed governor, (vii) buffers (energy accumulation, energy dissipation), (viii) roping systems (compensating ropes, traction systems), (ix) car and landing fixtures (buttons, indicators and switches). It is relevant to note that the items mentioned in the web site is entirely in tune with the HSN explanatory notes and the ISI specifications. Out of these, only the prime mover, safety gear and over speed governor, car and landing fixtures have been manufactured and provided by the appellant. The remaining essential components such as lift car, counter weight, guide rail, entrances/doors, roping systems and buffers have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1958, itself, it can be seen that what has been supplied by the appellant does not constitute a lift either in an incomplete form nor does it have the essential character of a lift. They are only components and parts of a lift. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that what they have supplied is a lift in incomplete form having essential character of the lift totally fails. The items supplied do not constitute a lift falling under CETH 84.28 either in an incomplete form or having the essential character. They can only be considered as parts and components falling under CETH 84.31 and we hold accordingly. 6.11 The concept of essential character can also be seen from certain examples. A motor vehicle chassis may be capable of auto-movement. But can it carry a passenger or goods without the body. The answer would be a clear NO . Therefore, can we say that a motor vehicle chassis can be classified as a motor vehicle. The answer will be in the negative. In fact the tariff itself recognizes this fact and has provided a separate heading for automobile chassis. Let us consider another example. A mono-block pump set consists of an electric motor (the driver) and the pump. Withou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 2 of that Act. According to Rule 1 titles of Sections and Chapters in the Schedule are provided for ease of reference only. But for legal purposes, classification shall be determined accordingly to the terms of the headings and any relevant section or chapter Notes . If neither the heading nor the notes suffice to clarify the scope of a heading, then it must be construed according to the other following provisions contained in the Rules. Rule 1 gives primacy to the Section and Chapter Notes along with terms of headings. They should be first applied. If no clear picture emerges then only can one resort to the subsequent rules. As per the description of Heading 84.28, the said heading covers machinery for lifting, handling, loading or unloading machinery. Parts, which are suitable for use solely or principally with the above machinery, are classified under Heading 84.31. Thus from the tariff description itself, it is clear that parts of lift machinery are classifiable under CETH 84.31 and there is no need to invoke any other rule for the purpose of classification. 6.14 Assuming but not admitting that Rule 1 does not apply, let us see whether Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods being unassembled motor vehicles, though unfinished vehicles. Indeed, no evidence was put to the contrary. Rather, the evidence was that the goods were regarded commercially as CKD motor vehicles. We are of the view that, looked at collectively, the goods were sufficiently committed to assembly into motor vehicles of the designated type and were sufficiently complete to be identified as belonging to the specified class and no other. The above conclusion was arrived at based on the evidence available. In the case before us, as we have already noted earlier, many essential components of the lift are lacking and even the components supplied were not presented together but cleared over a period of time. Therefore, the ratio of the above decision does not apply. 6.16 As regards the reliance placed on the Vishwa Industrial Co. (P) Ltd. (supra), the issue for consideration was whether the conveyer system supplied by the appellant against a specific order would merit classification under CETH 84.28 or as parts/spares of such cover under CETH 8431. The appellant therein the manufactured some parts in their own factory and purchased some other parts from the market. The convey ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed .These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated . Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statute, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes . The Supreme Court further observed that circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a word of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper . In view of the above legal position, we are of the considered view that the reliance placed by the appellant on the decision of the Australian Tribunal and of this Tribunal in the case of Vishwa Industrial Co. and Flat Product Equipments is of no avail as the facts involved in those cases and in the present case are substantially different and hence distinguishable. 6.18 On the contrary, in a more or less identical case pertaining to Otis Elevator Company (supra), this Tribunal held that parts of lifts/escalators cleared over a period of time under a single contract cannot be considered as lifts or escalators, as such lifts/escalator come i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew of this legal position, we are of the considered view that parts of lift machinery manufactured and supplied by the appellant do not constitute an incomplete or unfinished lift nor such parts have the essential character of a lift. Therefore, they cannot be considered as a lift machinery falling under CETH 84.28. The said parts supplied can only be classified under CETH 84.31 as parts/components of the lift machinery. Therefore, the classification of the parts under CETH 84.31 by the adjudicating authority is correct in law and cannot be faulted. 6.19 From the documents available on record and those tendered at the time of hearing, it is seen that the assessments were provisional from 1-9-1990 onwards on account of non-finalisation of price lists. Therefore, the question of time bar would not arise in respect of demands for the period from 1-9-1990 onwards. However, as regards the demand for the period August, 1986 to August, 1990 is concerned, the demand would be time-barred for the reason that the entire issue regarding classification dispute was well known to the department and the department had also approved the classification list classifying the parts under CETH 8428 s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
