2017 (10) TMI 519 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds goods classification as structures, not pre-fabricated buildings.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I Versus M/s. Beehive Foundry Engineering Work

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request for rectification, upholding the classification of goods as structures instead of pre-fabricated buildings ... Rectification of Mistake - Held that: - The Tribunal has no powers to review its order but can only rectify an error which is apparent in the order. An error apparent on the face of record means, an error which strikes on mere looking and does not require long drawn out process of reasoning on points where there may be conceivably two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness - The error that has been put forth by the respondent counsel in the present application, in our view, is not one which is patent and can be easily discovered and attended to. The entire appeal would require to be reheard - ROM application dismissed. Issues:Rectification of error apparent in final order regarding classification of goods as pre-fabricated building or structure.Analysis:The respondent filed a ROM application seeking amendment to state the alleged error apparent on the face of record in the final orders dated 26.8.2013. The dispute arose from the classification of goods as prefabricated building or structure in two purchase orders. The original authority confirmed duty demand, which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal accepted the department's contention regarding two purchase orders, directing re-quantification of duty. The respondent argued that the Tribunal erred in classifying the items as structures, contending that dismantling and re-erection at the site did not change the character of pre-fabricated buildings. The respondent sought rectification of the alleged error apparent on the face of record.The respondent's counsel argued that the items supplied were pre-fabricated buildings, emphasizing the distinction between new and existing items supplied in the purchase orders. The Tribunal, however, confirmed the duty demand for the two purchase orders, classifying the items as structures under a different heading. The respondent contended that this classification was erroneous and required rectification as an error apparent on the face of record.The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, clarified the scope of rectification, emphasizing that it can only rectify errors that are apparent on the face of record. The respondent's argument that the dismantled and re-used parts retained the character of pre-fabricated buildings was assessed in light of the relevant chapter headings. The Tribunal concluded that the items supplied did not qualify as pre-fabricated buildings under the specified heading, as the dismantled structures, when re-erected at the site, did not possess the essential character of a building. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the ROM application, finding no error apparent on the face of record and upholding the impugned final order's decision on classification.In summary, the Tribunal rejected the respondent's request for rectification, maintaining that the items supplied did not meet the criteria for classification as pre-fabricated buildings under the relevant heading. The decision highlighted the distinction between incomplete buildings and structures, ultimately upholding the duty demand classification for the disputed purchase orders.