TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned Principal Commissioner has confirmed the demand of central excise duty under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with proviso to erstwhile Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest under Section 11AA of the Act read with erstwhile Section 11AB of the Act and also imposed under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of rice mill machinery including elevators, conveyors, parboiling and drying plants and parts & accessories thereof. According to the appellant, all these items are falling under Chapter Heading 8437 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; but the dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decided by the Tribunal in favour of the asssessee classifying the same under Chapter Heading 8437 in following cases and the said decisions of the Tribunal have been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court: * Alpsco Graintech Pvt Ltd vs. CCE, Chandigarh - 2019 (365) ELT 944 (Tri. Chan.) upheld by the Supreme Court in CCE vs. Alpsco Graintech Pvt Ltd - 2019 (368) ELT A225 (SC) * Sona Foods India vs. CCE, Ghaziabad - 2019 (368) ELT 162 (Tri. All.) upheld by the Supreme Court in CCE vs. Sona Foods India - 2019 (368) ELT A50 (SC) * Annapurna Agronics Machinery P Ltd vs. CCE, Sonepat - 2020 (371) ELT 911 (Tri. Chan.) upheld by the Supreme Court in CCE vs. Annapurna Agronics Machinery P Ltd - 2020 (371) ELT A302 (SC) He f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ismissed on monetary limit by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported as (2023) 10 Centax 225 (SC). He further submits that the said decision of the Division Bench of the Tribunal has been followed by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rippen Radiators & Heat Exchangers Pvt Ltd vs. CCE & ST, Ahmedabad-II vide Final Order Nos. 11676- 11677/2023 dated 10.08.2023 in Excise Appeal Nos. 10291 & 10292 of 2015. He further submits that similar view has also been taken by the High Court/Supreme Court in the following cases wherein it has been held that the circulars of the department are binding on departmental authorities and no view contrary to the circulars can be taken by the department: * Paper Products Ltd vs. CCE ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Tribunal in various cases holding that the same to fall under Chapter Heading 8437 and the decisions of the Tribunal have been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court (as cited above in para 4.1). We also find that the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court have been accepted by the department and demand for the subsequent period has been dropped by the Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North vide Order-in-Original No. 24/C.Ex./Pr.Commr./M.M.G./D.N./2023-24 dated 22.03.2024 in the case of Annapurna Agronics Machinery Pvt Ltd and others. Therefore, by following ratios of the said decisions, we hold that classification of elevators and conveyors falls under Chapter Heading 8437 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which is chargeable to nil rate o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cided the classification under heading 8419 but by virtue of Circular dated 19.05.2010 during the currency of the said Circular the goods is classifiable under heading 8437 and consequently no duty could have been demanded on this very issue. This Tribunal, in the case of Jyoti Sales Corporation (supra) held as under:- ............. ............ 8. In view of the above discussions, as the circular dated 19-5-2010 was in operation during the period in question, therefore, we hold that the said circular is binding on the departmental officers. 9. Further, we take a note of the fact that in the case of Auro Weaving Mills (supra) the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court has also observed that the Board Circula....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... adjudicating authority is not correct. 13. In view of above analysis, we hold that for the period prior to 15-5-2014 if the appellants have classified their products in question under Chapter Heading No. 8437 of CETA, no demand is sustainable in terms of the Circular No. 924/14/2010-CX., dated 19- 5-2010. ............. ............ From the above decision it can be seen that even though the Larger Bench has decided the merits of classification under heading 8419 but despite that the issue that when the Board Circular was in force which classified the goods under heading 8437 shall prevail as per various Supreme Court decisions discussed by the Larger Bench in the aforesaid decision." Therefore, by fol....