2017 (8) TMI 266 - AT - Central Excise

Apex Court Upholds Tribunal Decision on Railway Engine Parts Classification /95

CCE, Chandigarh-I Versus Diesel Loco Modernisation Works

The Apex Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in a case concerning the classification of parts of Railway Engines under chapter heading 86 for exemption ... Classification of goods - various parts of the Railway Engines - classified under chapter 84-85 or under chapter 86? - benefit of N/N. 62/95 - Held that: - the issue of classification and benefit of exemption Notification No.62/95 was traveled up to the Hon’ble Apex Court in respondent’s own case for the earlier period and the Hon’ble Apex Court on the basis of the statement made before the Hon’ble Apex Court by the Ld. ASG disposed of the matter holding that exemption to the parts manufactured by the respondent has already being granted and nothing survives - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Classification of parts of Railway Engines under chapter heading 86 for availing exemption under Notification No.62/95.2. Dispute regarding classification of parts under chapter 84 and 85 by the Revenue.3. Challenge to the order by the Revenue.4. Interpretation of Notification No.30/2005 granting exemption for parts of IC engines.5. Validity of the Ld. Commissioner's decision to drop the demand against the respondent.Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute over the classification of parts of Railway Engines under chapter heading 86 for availing exemption under Notification No.62/95. The Revenue contended that the parts fell under chapter 84 and 85, and issued show cause notices demanding duty. The Tribunal, in a previous order, held that the goods fell under chapter 86 and were entitled to exemption under Notification No.62/95. The matter was escalated to the Hon'ble Apex Court, which directed the matter to be settled between the parties before the Committee of Disputes. Subsequently, Notification No.30/2005 was issued, granting exemption for parts of IC engines. The Hon'ble Apex Court disposed of the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision, and the Ld. adjudicating authority dropped the demand against the respondent based on this order.2. The Revenue challenged the order, arguing that the exemption under Notification No.30/2005 applied only to parts of IC engines, not to other parts like Traction Motors and Carbon Brushes. The Ld. AR contended that the demand drop for these parts was incorrect. However, the Tribunal found that the matter had been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court's order, which stated that exemption had already been granted for all parts manufactured by the respondent under Notification No.62/95. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. Commissioner's decision to drop the demand against the respondent, citing judicial discipline.3. The respondent did not appear, and the notice sent to them was returned un-served. Despite the absence of the respondent, the Tribunal proceeded with the disposal of the matter. The Tribunal noted that the issue had already been adjudicated up to the Hon'ble Apex Court in the respondent's previous case, and that the matter had been resolved in favor of the respondent. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, affirming the decision to uphold the impugned order and dropping the demand against the respondent.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the classification of parts of Railway Engines, the interpretation of relevant notifications, and the finality of previous decisions by higher courts, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.