TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of appellant in Central Excise Tariff case</h1> <h3>AIR CONDITIONING CORPORATION, NEW DELHI Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA</h3> AIR CONDITIONING CORPORATION, NEW DELHI Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA - 1985 (19) E.L.T. 206 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Classification of parts of Cooling Towers under Central Excise Tariff.2. Time-barred demand for Central Excise duty.3. Applicability of Rule 9(2) and Rule 10(a) of Central Excise Rules.Classification of parts of Cooling Towers under Central Excise Tariff:The case involves a dispute regarding the classification of blade assemblies fitted with Cooling Towers under the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant argued that these blade assemblies were parts of the complete unit and should not be separately classified under Tariff Item No. 33(2). The appellant contended that the components must be in assembled condition to be assessable as industrial fans. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument and emphasized that the Excise Officer should have approved the classification list after proper inquiry and satisfaction about the components. The Tribunal held that it was not necessary for the appellant to mention every individual component in the classification list. The bench concluded that the demand for duty was time-barred and set aside the order of the Appellate Collector.Time-barred demand for Central Excise duty:The appellant contended that the demand for Central Excise duty was time-barred as the Central Excise Officers were aware of the components used in the manufacture of Cooling Towers and had approved the classification list. The Departmental Representative argued that the demand was not time-barred and referred to the classification list where the goods were described as components of cooling towers. The Tribunal noted that there was no suggestion of clandestine removal in the show cause notice or orders. The Tribunal emphasized that for invoking Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, there must be clandestine removal, which was not established in this case. The Tribunal held that even if there was a mis-statement, Rule 10 read with Rule 173J would apply with a limitation period of one year. The bench concluded that the demand for duty was time-barred and ruled in favor of the appellant.Applicability of Rule 9(2) and Rule 10(a) of Central Excise Rules:The arguments also raised the question of whether Rule 10(a) would be applicable in the case, as the show cause notice specifically referred to Rule 9(2). The Tribunal decided not to delve into this aspect at that stage and emphasized that the demand for Central Excise duty for the period in question was time-barred. The bench highlighted that it was unnecessary to assess the applicability of Rule 10(a) as the demand was clearly beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Collector and allowed the appeal based on the time-barred nature of the demand for Central Excise duty.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of classification under the Central Excise Tariff, time-barred demand for duty, and the applicability of specific rules under the Central Excise Rules in the context of the case.
TaxTMI 