TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und that they are specifically designed for use in Power Tillers which are used in the agricultural, horticultural or forestry as machinery for soil preparations or cultivation; lawn or sports ground rollers as parts of agricultural, horticultural or forestry machinery for soil preparation or cultivation. However, the Revenue has taken a view that the Gears and Shafts made solely and principally for use in Power Tillers are classifiable in terms of Section Note 2(a) of Section XVI under Chapter Heading 84.83 of the Tariff. 2. The learned Commissioner, in the impugned order, has noted that the issue is squarely covered by the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of Sree Ganesh Gears Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore - 2002 (139) E.L.T. 307 (Tri. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to the terms of the headings and any relative Section or Chapter Note'. Only when there is an absence of any Section or Chapter Notes, then the other Rules of Interpretation would apply. In this case, Note 2(a) of Section XVI has been applied. And therefore, the question of referring to Section Note 3(a) does not arise. He further submits that even in terms of Note 3(a), there is no specific headings for choosing the later one. He submits that the Tribunal has correctly laid down the classification of Gears and Shafts specifically designed and principally and exclusively used in Power Tillers under Heading 84.83 of CET and the ruling in Sree Ganesh Gears, is required to be upheld. He further draws reference to the Tribunal ruling in CCE, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Section or Note the question of resorting to the Interpretative Rules would apply. There is no error in the judgment of Sree Ganesh Gears Pvt. Ltd. We also find that the Tribunal has gone behind the classification of Gears Shafts under Heading 84.83 in HMT Ltd. case and in the case of CCE v. Kafila. However, the argument taken by the learned Counsel that there is no cause to invoke larger period is accepted. The demands beyond the normal period and penalty imposed is set aside. It is a mere case of classification of goods and there was no intention to evade duty by the appellants. The impugned order is modified to the extent of holding the demands to be barred beyond the normal period and set aside the penalty. Otherwise, the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
