TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - A/71162-71168/2018-EX[DB] - Dated:- 13-6-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Joint Commissioner, for Revenue Shri Bipin Garg Ms Stuti Saggi, Advocates, for Assessee ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The above stated appeals though arising out of three impugned orders are having same issue involved and therefore, they are taken together for decision. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Indo Asian Fusegear Ltd. (IAFL for short) were manufacturers of CFL lamps. At their Noida unit, they undertook manufacture of CFL lamps to some extent and remaining process of manufacture on the same goods were carried out at their Haridwar Unit. At Noida unit glass tubes were coated with the tri-band phosphorous filled with mixture of argon and mercury vapour. The glass tube was bent on both ends and also sealed. Inside the said glass tubes at their ends tungsten filament was connected to the lead in wire outside at both the ends. At that stage the partially processed goods were shifted or transferred to Haridwar unit on stock transfer basis. At Haridwar Unit, starter, capacitor and plastic c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty and imposition of personal penalty on Shri M.S. Karolia, before this Tribunal. In the subsequent show cause notice, original authority confirmed the demand through the Order-in-Original dated 22.12.2009 which was appealed against and said appeal was decided through the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 14.05.2010, wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the stage at which processed goods were removed from Noida Unit, were properly classifiable under Tariff Item No.85393110. Aggrieved by the said order, revenue has preferred Appeal Nos.E/2597-2598/2010 before this Tribunal. Appeal Nos.E/888-889/2011 were preferred by Revenue against Impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 14.01.2011. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of records, we find that Appeal No. E/2597/2010 was preferred by revenue, challenging the Order-in-Appeal dated 14.05.2010. We find that Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has taken into consideration the various statements recorded of Shri Arunava Choudhary, Shri M.S. Karolia, Shri Satnam Singh and examined the said Rule 2 (a) of General Rules for Interpretation of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -the based capsule as cleared from Noida unit, cannot be used by a customer. -the based unit transferred to their Haridwar unit cannot provide light. = Sh. Satnam Singh:- -there are two types of CFL; one is Non Electofit (CFL without ballast) or the core lamp and the other is direct fit lamp (CFL with ballast). -capsule is glass part of CFL with both ends sealed; -in normal trade parlance based capsule is not known as CFL. -for direct fit lamp other parts which are required to be fitted are PCB, capacitor, starter, plastic cap = Declaration filed with the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Haridwar It was noticed that copper strips, PBT, Filaments as major inputs which were declared to be used in the manufacturing of CFL/FLT. 6.4 The adjudicating authority further observed that the appellant s plea for classifying the goods in accordance with Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for interpretation to CETA, 1985 is not of any help to them, if it is treated as incomplete or unfinished goods having essential characteristics of finished item yet as per rule it is to be classified in the same heading i.e. 85399010 and that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed Non Electofit CFL only the plastic base with pins is required to be fitted and whereas for Direct fit CFL other components such as ballast, capacitor, starter and plastic cap are required to be fitted. The based capsule‟ can by no means be called as part of CFL. In fact it is an unfinished article with essential characteristics of CFL. The test of marketability as stressed by the adjudicating authority is not warranted in the present case. I place reliance on the following case laws. The Hon ble CESTAT in the case of Bharat Enterprises vs. CCE, Delhi 2002 (139) ELT 321 (Tr.) held that the rough machined/job worked moulds not capable of being sold or purchased as moulds/dies are excisable in view of Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. As regards the marketability of based capsule , the Hon ble CESTAT in the case of Universal Commercial Corpn. Vs Collector of Customs, Delhi (supra) held that The disagreement is only about the interpretation whether the incomplete machine should be classified as a complete machine. The ld. Member (Judicial) has applied the test whether it performs the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
