Conflicting excise rulings on cold storage parts led the Calcutta High Court to refer the tariff dispute to a Division Bench.

Conflicting High Court views on the scope of Item No. 29A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 led the single Bench to treat the excisability question as requiring authoritative consideration by a Division Bench. The competing approaches concerned whether parts fabricated and installed at site for a cold storage system were dutiable only when they formed ready assembled units ordinarily sold as such, or whether components such as cooling coils and condensers fell within the tariff entry even when manufactured for captive use and not for sale. The writ petition was not finally decided on merits, and the matter was referred to the Chief Justice for placement before a Division Bench.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in view of conflicting High Court decisions on the scope of Item No. 29A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the matter should be placed before a Division Bench for decision.

Analysis: The judgment noted divergent views on whether parts fabricated and installed at site for a cold storage system fall within Item No. 29A(3), with some decisions holding that duty is attracted only to ready assembled units or parts thereof ordinarily sold as such, while another decision held that parts such as cooling coils and condensers fall within the tariff entry even if manufactured for captive use and not for sale. In light of this conflict, the single Bench did not finally decide the merits of the tariff dispute and treated the controversy as requiring consideration by a Division Bench.

Conclusion: The matter was referred to the Chief Justice for placement before a Division Bench.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not finally adjudicated on the excisability issue, and the controversy was directed to be settled by a Division Bench.

---