2008 (4) TMI 56 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Tank Classification under Chapter Heading 84.19

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's classification of M.S. Tanks under Chapter Heading 84.19, based on the previous order from Dec. 2001 and the ... Classification of M.S. Tanks and vats fabricated by the respondents - Commissioner (Appeals) has entirely relied upon the earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of the same assessees, holding that M.S. Tanks fall under Chapter 84.19, not under 73.09 - In the absence of any thing on record to show that earlier order either has been challenged or set aside by the Tribunal, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) – revenue appeal rejected Issues:Classification of M.S. Tanks and vats under Chapter Heading 84.19 as claimed by the assesses and accepted by the Commissioner versus under Chapter Heading 73.09 as contended by the Revenue.Detailed Analysis:The dispute in this appeal revolves around the classification of M.S. Tanks and vats fabricated by the respondents in their factory. The assesses claim classification under Chapter Heading 84.19, supported by the Commissioner's order, while the Revenue argues for classification under Chapter Heading 73.09. The Commissioner(Appeals) relied on a previous order from Dec. 2001, where it was held that M.S. Tanks fall under Chapter 84.19. The key argument presented was that the tanks were specifically designed for pickling purposes and should be classified accordingly. The assesses emphasized that pickling tanks are not the final product, but rather used in the manufacturing process of iron and steel wires, which are the final products. They highlighted the importance of usage and purpose in classification, pointing out that tanks fitted with mechanical or thermal equipment are excluded from Chapter Heading 76.11. The Tribunal noted that the appeal did not challenge the Dec. 2001 order, and since there was no evidence of the order being set aside, they upheld the Commissioner's decision based on the reliance on the previous order.The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of challenge to the previous order and the absence of independent reasoning in the present impugned order. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner's decision, as the appeal did not provide any new information or challenge the established classification. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's classification of M.S. Tanks under Chapter Heading 84.19, as supported by the earlier order and the arguments presented regarding the specific usage and purpose of the tanks in question. The decision highlighted the importance of consistency in classification and the need for clear grounds to challenge established orders in appeals.