Classification of refinery pressure vessels, site-assembly valuation, and missing record issues led to partial relief and procedural disposal.

Pressure vessels for a refinery were treated as classifiable under Heading 73.09 because the fixed, built-in stationary internals were not moving parts and the goods could not be treated as mechanical devices under Heading 84.79. For surface condensers assembled at site, the appellate finding on jurisdiction was left undisturbed: any addition of bought-out items and related demand lay with the officer having jurisdiction over the site where the goods came into existence. A further classification dispute concerning TPP deck and facility under Headings 84.30 or 84.31 was not decided on merits because the basic adjudication record was missing; the appeal was disposed of under Rule 11 with liberty to seek restoration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether pressure vessels for refinery were classifiable under Heading 84.79 or Heading 73.09. (ii) Whether the value of bought-out items used in assembling surface condensers at site was includible in the assessable value and whether the demand could be raised by the jurisdictional officer at the factory. (iii) Whether the appeal concerning classification of TPP deck and facility under Heading 84.30 or Heading 84.31 could be decided on the available record.

Issue (i): Whether pressure vessels for refinery were classifiable under Heading 84.79 or Heading 73.09.

Analysis: The finding recorded by the adjudicating authority was that the goods had fixed and built-in stationary internals which were not moving parts and therefore could not be treated as mechanical devices for Heading 84.79. The appellate authority had proceeded on an incorrect reading of that finding. On the record, the classification adopted by the adjudicating authority under Heading 73.09 was sustained.

Conclusion: The classification under Heading 84.79 was rejected and the classification under Heading 73.09 was restored, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the value of bought-out items used in assembling surface condensers at site was includible in the assessable value and whether the demand could be raised by the jurisdictional officer at the factory.

Analysis: The appellate authority had not held that the value of bought-out items was not includible; it had only held that the jurisdiction to add such value and raise the demand would lie with the officer having jurisdiction over the site where the goods came into existence. Since the appeal did not assail that jurisdictional finding, no interference was warranted.

Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the jurisdictional finding was left undisturbed, against Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether the appeal concerning classification of TPP deck and facility under Heading 84.30 or Heading 84.31 could be decided on the available record.

Analysis: The lower appellate order did not set out the necessary facts and merely relied on an earlier order. The basic adjudication order was not filed, so the record was insufficient for a correct decision on the classification issue. In these circumstances, the appeal was disposed of under Rule 11 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules with liberty to seek restoration upon filing of the adjudication order.

Conclusion: The appeal was not decided on merits and was dismissed with liberty to apply for restoration, against Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The order sustained the classification of pressure vessels under Heading 73.09, declined interference with the jurisdictional finding on inclusion of bought-out items, and disposed of the remaining classification dispute for want of the basic adjudication record.

---