1998 (11) TMI 218 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacturer appeals tariff classification, wins reversal of duty credit dispute.

The appellant, a manufacturer of electroplating equipment, contested the classification of goods under the Tariff, arguing for their inclusion under a ... Modvat - Reversal of Issues: Classification of goods under the Tariff - Reversal of duty credit - Assessment of assessable valueClassification of goods under the Tariff:The appellant, a manufacturer of electroplating equipment, argued that the equipment should be classified under heading 85.43 of the Tariff, including its parts, subject to other provisions. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Assistant Commissioner's decision that the goods cleared by the appellant were not identifiable parts of electroplating machinery. The appellant contended that the goods were considered separate due to lack of modification in their factory, and any duty credit to be reversed would not exceed the duty paid on these goods by their manufacturers. The Departmental representative highlighted the need for verifying values and duty paid before a final decision.Reversal of duty credit:The notice operated on the assumption that the goods maintained their original identity and function, thus not forming part of the electroplating machinery. The appellant argued that the duty paid and credited had already been accounted for in the higher value quoted for the electroplating plant, irrespective of the assessable value. The Tribunal emphasized that if the duty paid by the appellant under heading 85.43 was not less than the credit taken, the requirement of the notice would be fulfilled. However, there was an inconsistency between the approval of the price list and the assumption in the notice, leading to the exclusion of the price classification lists from consideration. The appellant committed to presenting data to the Assistant Commissioner for further examination.Assessment of assessable value:To determine if the duty paid exceeded the credit taken, a detailed examination of each item was deemed necessary. The appellant agreed to provide relevant data within two months for the Assistant Commissioner's review, ensuring a decision in line with natural justice principles. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and any consequential relief was granted accordingly.