TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that entities by apparent description and application of Boards instruction by themselves cannot be considered to be a complete Air Conditioner or have essential character of Air Conditioner to classify them as other than parts. No duty demands can be worked out on such. Thus, it is clear that the assembly which were cleared by the appellant were not contained either one or more items specified in the board circular. Therefore, if this is correct then the goods cleared by the appellant do not have essential characteristic of complete air conditioner therefore, the same shall not be liable for levy of special excise duty. On going through the impugned order, it is found that the learned adjudicating authority has not discussed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the department is that the goods which have been cleared by the appellant are having essential characteristic of complete air conditioner therefore, is liable to special excise duty whereas, the contention of the appellant is that the goods cleared by them are parts and does not have essential characteristic of air conditions and hence the special excise duty is not liable to be paid. 1.1 In the first round, the adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand vide Order-In-Original No.10-13/DEM/VAPI/2005 dated 30.08.2005 which was challenged by the appellant under Appeal No.E/3731 of 2005, the tribunal remanded the matter vide Final Order No.A/1426/WZB/AHD/2009 dated 3.7.2009 for a fresh adjudication, in view of the earlier order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY- 1998 (103) E.L.T. 492 (Tribunal) GIANI RAM FOAM INDUSTRIES vs. COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., DELHI-I- 2003 (152) E.L.T. 317 (Tribunal) BIDAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE LTD. Vs. COMMR. OF C.EX., MANGALORE- 2008 (224) E.L.T. 90 (Tri.-Bang.) FEDDERS LLOYD CORPORATION LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., MUMBAI- 2008 (221) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) FEDDERS LLOYD CORPORATION LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., MUMBAI-II- 2001 (135) E.L.T. 1331 (Tri.-Del.) 04. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the issue in the appellant s own case has been settled vide this tribunal s Order A/1449 to 1451/WZB/06-CIII (EB) dated 3.8.06, the said decision was given conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntains all the six items mentioned in the board circular or otherwise. If it is found that if one or more items specified in the board circular is absent in the assembly supplied by the appellant, the same shall not be considered as complete air conditioner whereas, the goods shall be considered as parts of air conditioner accordingly, there shall not be any levy of special excise duty. 4.3 With this observation, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for passing afresh order. Since the matter is of very old period of 2003, the denovo adjudication process may be completed within a period three months from the date of this order. 05. Appeals are allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
