2003 (11) TMI 430 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT Upholds Agricultural Tools Classification as Parts, Rejects Revenue's Appeal

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi upheld the classification of agricultural knives and soil levellers under Chapter Headings 84.32 and 84.33 as ... Order - Binding character - Finality - Classification of goods Issues: Classification of goods under Chapter Headings 84.32 and 84.33 vs. Chapter Heading 8208.00In this case, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi addressed the issue of classification of agricultural knives and soil levellers manufactured by the respondents. The respondents claimed exemption from duty under specific notifications by classifying the goods under Chapter Headings 84.32 and 84.33 as parts of machines. However, the Department proposed a different classification under Chapter Heading 8208.00 of the CETA. Show cause notices were issued, and the adjudicating authority accepted the Department's classification, leading to a duty demand against the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) later reversed these orders, supporting the classification claimed by the respondents.The Tribunal considered arguments from both sides. The Department contended that the goods should be classified under Chapter Heading 8208.00, while the respondents and their counsel supported the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, citing a previous order that classified similar goods under Chapter Headings 84.32 and 84.33. The Tribunal examined the nature of the goods and their specific use for agricultural purposes, noting that they were machines/appliances for agricultural use only, supporting the classification under Chapter Headings 84.32 and 84.33.The Tribunal highlighted that a previous order by the Commissioner (Appeals) had already classified the goods under Chapter Heading 84.33, which had not been challenged and thus was binding. It was noted that the Department did not attempt to seek a change in classification or issue new show cause notices based on altered circumstances. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department could not ignore the previous order and raise a duty demand based on a different classification. Citing a similar case precedent, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the classification under Chapter Headings 84.32 and 84.33 for the goods in question.