2011 (4) TMI 392 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods under Central Excise Duty clarified in recent judgment, impacting duty payment

The judgment addressed the classification of goods under Central Excise Duty, confirming a demand against the respondent for payment. The dispute centered ... Manufacture - Excisability - Towers and Lattice Mast made of Iron & Steel - Immovable structure - As rightly submitted by DR, the case in hand is fully covered by the decision of the Larger Bench in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2005 -TMI - 49028 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) case as well as of the Division Bench in RPG Transmission Ltd. (2010 -TMI - 202854 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) case. - Assessee is liable to pay duty of excise. Issues:Classification of goods under Central Excise Duty; Confirmation of demand against the respondent; Applicability of case laws on tower manufacturing; Comparison of decisions by Larger Bench and Division Bench.Classification of Goods under Central Excise Duty:The judgment involves a dispute regarding the classification of goods under Central Excise Duty. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed a demand against the respondent, now known as a different entity, for the payment of Central Excise Duty. The Deputy Commissioner concluded that the items in question, Towers and Lattice Mast made of Iron & Steel, fell under sub-heading No. 7308.20, attracting Central Excise Duty at 15%. The Deputy Commissioner held that the product cleared by the respondent was classifiable under this sub-heading, making the differential duty recoverable from the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on various case laws to support the decision that the goods manufactured were not towers but parts of towers, thus affecting the classification for Central Excise Duty.Confirmation of Demand Against the Respondent:The judgment also addresses the confirmation of the demand against the respondent for the payment of Central Excise Duty. The Adjudicating Authority had confirmed a demand of Rs. 12,15,081 against the respondent, which was challenged in the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudicating Authority's order, leading to further legal proceedings. The issue revolved around the payment of the demanded amount by the respondent and the classification of goods under the Central Excise Act, 1944.Applicability of Case Laws on Tower Manufacturing:A significant aspect of the judgment is the consideration of various case laws related to tower manufacturing. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on decisions in cases involving tower manufacturing to support the argument that the goods in question were parts of towers and not standalone towers, impacting their classification for excise duty. The judgment discussed the distinction between towers and their components, emphasizing the interpretation of the law in the context of manufacturing activities related to towers and lattice masts.Comparison of Decisions by Larger Bench and Division Bench:The judgment compared and contrasted decisions by the Larger Bench and Division Bench of the Tribunal concerning tower manufacturing and the imposition of excise duty. The DR highlighted the relevance of the Larger Bench decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. case and the Division Bench decision in RPG Transmission Ltd. case to the facts of the present case. The judgment concluded that the decisions of Division Benches contrary to the Larger Bench could not be considered as laying down the correct proposition of law. This comparison of decisions played a crucial role in determining the outcome of the appeal and setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order in favor of the Adjudicating Authority's decision.