1999 (6) TMI 153 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules unassembled structures not classified as prefabricated buildings under Tariff Heading.

AMIYA CORPORATION Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA I

AMIYA CORPORATION Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA I - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 336 (Tribunal) Issues:Classification of pre-fabricated structures under Tariff Heading 94.06.Analysis:The central issue in this case revolves around the classification of pre-fabricated structures, including trusses, purlins, V brackets, etc., under Tariff Heading 94.06 as 'pre-fabricated buildings.' The Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 94 defines 'prefabricated buildings' as structures finished in the factory or assembled on-site for various purposes like housing, offices, schools, shops, sheds, garages, etc. The HSN Explanatory Note under Chapter Heading 94.06 further clarifies that prefabricated buildings may be presented fully assembled, unassembled, or in incomplete form with the essential character of prefabricated buildings.The Tribunal carefully analyzed the impugned orders and the arguments presented by both sides. It was observed that the scope of Tariff Heading 94.06 covers pre-fabricated buildings, whether assembled or unassembled for on-site assembly. Notably, parts of prefabricated buildings presented separately are excluded from this classification. The Tribunal emphasized that for a structure to qualify as a prefabricated building, it must have walls, as indicated in the HSN Explanatory Notes. Since there was no evidence of supplying panels for walls and roof by the appellants, the unassembled structures provided by them could not be classified as prefabricated buildings under Tariff Heading 94.06.Another significant argument raised was regarding the manufacturing process involved in fabricating components like purlins, trusses, V brackets, etc., from duty-paid iron and steel products. The consultant contended that this activity did not amount to manufacturing, citing a precedent judgment by the Tribunal in the case of Elecon Engineering. The Tribunal concurred with this view, stating that the fabrication process did not constitute manufacturing, and therefore, the products were not dutiable. Relying on the precedent judgment, the Tribunal held that the items in question were not subject to duty, and consequently, the issue of clubbing the clearance of two factories did not arise.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellants, granting them consequential relief. The judgment underscores the importance of a comprehensive understanding of the classification criteria for prefabricated buildings under Tariff Heading 94.06 and the distinction between prefabricated structures and complete buildings for duty classification purposes.