2002 (12) TMI 268 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns penalty, exempts sub-assemblies under Circular guidelines

KEIHIN PANALFA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA

The Tribunal upheld the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The decision aligned with Circular guidelines, determining the appellant's ... Car air-conditioner sub-assembly - Exemption Issues involved:1. Interpretation of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. regarding exemption eligibility for 'A/C sub-assembly frame' and 'A/C sub-assembly engine'.2. Classification of sub-assemblies as parts of air-conditioning machines.3. Application of Circular No. 666/57-2002-CX in determining eligibility for concessional rate of duty.4. Compliance with essential elements of air-conditioning machines for classification.Analysis:Issue 1 - Interpretation of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E.:The appeal questioned whether the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. applied to 'A/C sub-assembly frame' and 'A/C sub-assembly engine' manufactured by the appellant. The appellant contended that their products should be classified as parts eligible for exemption, while the adjudicating authority disagreed, leading to a penalty imposition. The appellant argued against relying on the EXIM Policy's definition of 'Part' for Central Excise Tariff interpretation, citing legal precedents. They emphasized that their products did not qualify as complete air-conditioners due to lacking essential components like a motor-driven fan.Issue 2 - Classification of sub-assemblies:The Revenue argued that the appellant's registration and declarations indicated manufacturing of complete air-conditioners, not parts. They highlighted that the definition of 'Part' from the EXIM Policy distinguished assembly and parts. The Revenue insisted on strict interpretation of exemption notifications and cited legal principles. However, the appellant maintained that their products were sub-assemblies, not complete air-conditioners, supported by correspondences with the Department.Issue 3 - Application of Circular No. 666/57-2002-CX:The appellant submitted Circular No. 666/57-2002-CX, which clarified the classification of sub-assemblies without the essential characteristics of a complete machine as parts eligible for concessional duty. The Revenue contended that the circular referred to split air-conditioners, not those for motor vehicles. The appellant argued that the circular's modification expanded its scope, encompassing the present case and emphasizing essential components for classification.Issue 4 - Compliance with essential elements of air-conditioning machines:The Board clarified the essential elements of air-conditioning machines in Circular No. 25/2002, highlighting components like evaporator coil, condenser coil, motor, fan, compressor, and capillary line. The circular specified that assemblies lacking these components were classified as parts eligible for concessional duty. The Board's guidance aligned with the appellant's argument that their sub-assemblies did not supply all essential elements, justifying their classification as parts.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The decision aligned with Circular guidelines, determining the appellant's sub-assemblies as parts eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. The judgment emphasized compliance with essential elements for air-conditioning machine classification, supporting the appellant's position and overturning the penalty and demand imposed by the adjudicating authority.