2003 (7) TMI 405 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal ruling: Assembly classified as cooling unit under Item 29A(3), not Item 29E. Rule 56C interpretation clarified.

VOLTAS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III

VOLTAS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III - 2003 (157) E.L.T. 161 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Interpretation of Rule 56C regarding the movement of finished goods without payment of duty.2. Classification of goods received from the secondary manufacturer.3. Applicability of the extended period of limitation.4. Determination of whether the assembly constitutes an evaporator or a cooling unit.5. Application of Rule 56C in relation to the classification of goods.Issue 1: Interpretation of Rule 56CThe appellant, engaged in manufacturing water-coolers and refrigerators, sent stainless steel tanks and copper tubing to a job worker under Rule 56C. The Commissioner contended that the complete unit, including the tank wound with copper tubing, constituted an evaporator. However, the appellant argued that only the copper tube performed the cooling function, as per technical definitions and industry standards. The Tribunal analyzed the definitions of 'cooling' and 'evaporator' from the Indian Standard Institution and a relevant textbook, concluding that the evaporator referred to the copper tube, not the tank. Thus, the assembly of the tank and coil did not qualify as an evaporator under Rule 56C.Issue 2: Classification of GoodsThe Commissioner classified the assembly as an evaporator, imposing duty and penalty. However, the Tribunal found that the assembly was a cooling unit, classifiable under Item 29A(3), not Item 29E as contended by the Commissioner. It was noted that the notice did not seek to deny the Rule 56C facility by treating the assembly as a cooling unit. The Tribunal held that the assembly being a cooling unit did not disqualify it from the Rule 56C exemption.Issue 3: Applicability of Extended Limitation PeriodThe Commissioner upheld the extended period of limitation, demanding duty for goods received over a specified period. However, the Tribunal did not consider the limitation arguments, focusing solely on the merits of the case regarding the classification of goods and the applicability of Rule 56C.Issue 4: Determination of Assembly as Evaporator or Cooling UnitThe Tribunal clarified that the assembly of the tank and coil constituted a cooling unit, not an evaporator as contended by the Commissioner. This distinction was crucial in determining the classification of the goods and the applicability of Rule 56C for duty exemption.Issue 5: Application of Rule 56CThe Tribunal emphasized that for Rule 56C to apply, the goods received by the primary manufacturer must fall under Item 68 of the tariff. If the goods do not fall under Item 68, the rule does not apply, and duty must be paid by the manufacturer of the goods. The Tribunal concluded that if the goods were not classifiable under Item 68, Rule 56C would not be applicable, and duty would be the responsibility of the manufacturer.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the assembly constituted a cooling unit, not an evaporator, and that the goods were classifiable under Item 29A(3), not Item 29E. The judgment clarified the interpretation of Rule 56C and highlighted the importance of accurate classification for duty liability and exemption.