TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Mak Controls [1998 (6) TMI 563 - CESTAT CHENNAI], the interest of justice will be met by remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the issue of classification after applying the test laid down by the Tribunal. Penalty - Held that:- The matter is only one of interpretation of classification of goods - penalty u/r 25 is unjust and is set aside. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. E/308/2007 - FINAL ORDER No. 42044 / 2018 - Dated:- 18-7-2018 - Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member ( Judicial ) And Hon ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Ms. D. Naveena, Advocate For the Appellant Shri k. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC ( AR ) For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... former runs on diesel whereas the RFC runs on electricity. ii) The issue with regard to GPU (Diesel Engine) was settled in favour of the appellant in Mak Controls Vs CCE Coimbatore - 2001 (138) ELT 1152 (Tri.-Chennai) which, inter alia held such engines specifically caters only to an aircraft and forms part of an aircraft therefore would be classifiable only under CETH 8803 of CETA. The department appeal against this Tribunal decision was dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 (183) ELT A73 (SC). iii) The impugned show cause notice had sought to demand duty on both GPU (Diesel Engine) and RFC, however the adjudicating authority has dropped the proposal in respect of GPU (Diesel Engine) relying on the aforesaid judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods is irrelevant unless the Tariff entry refers to use or adaptation of the article as held by the Tribunal in the case of Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs UOI -1992 (60) ELT 392 (Tri.). He also places reliance on the following Tribunal decisions : i) M.G. Electronics Vs CCE Meerut 2005 (190) ELT 421 (Tri.-Del.) ii) ACD Communication Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC Chennai 2011 (263) ELT 744 (Tri.-Chennai) iii) Supdt. of Central Excise Others Vs VAC Met Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. 1985 (22) ELT 330 (SC) 3.4 The goods considered in Tribunal decision of Mak Controls and found affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court referred to by Ld. counsel was only a Ground Power Unit which was specifically designed for use by aircraft. In the present case, the item in dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tended inter alia that RFCs in question are meant for application for Aircraft of various categories and no other applications. RFCs use state of the art, high frequency generator, which gives a high voltage, 4000 Hz frequency output; This unit cannot be used for any other commercial purpose. it caters to the same power requirements of the aircraft as that of the GROUD POWER UNIT which is classified under Ch. 8803.00. the value charged would also indicate that this is a specialized product and used only for airplane requirements. 5.4 Evidently, these contentions and submissions of the appellants have not been dissected or analyzed by the adjudicating authority. While there are number of references to various decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
