TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (2) TMI 200
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Equipments properly classifiable under heading 8431.00 attracting higher rate of duty. The notice proposed invocation of longer period of limitation and imposition of personal penalty upon the appellants. 2. Upon adjudication, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta confirmed the demand of duty as proposed in the show cause notice and also imposed the personal penalty of an equivalent amount under the provisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Interest @24% was also confirmed on the amount outstanding under the provisions of Section 11AB of the Act. The said Order of the Commissioner is impugned before us. 4. Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants submits that they were placed with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmits that the observations made by the Commissioner that even if all the parts cleared from the factory may collectively constitute a machine, the classification can only be done as parts. He draws our attention to the earlier decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Vishwa Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.Ex., Calcutta-II reported in 1999 (107) E.L.T. 774 and in the case of C. C. Ex. v. B.H.P. Engineers reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 599 (Tribunal) = 2000 (40) RLT 791. Attention has also been drawn to other two decisions of the Tribunal in the case of C. C. Ex. v. Conveyor Equipments Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 478 and in the case of Flat Products Equipments(I) Limited v. C. C. Ex. reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 629 (Tribunal) =....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onveyors in CKD condition. He also submits that from the challans and gate passes, it was apparent that the goods were being cleared in CKD condition and this cannot be justifiably made the basis for invoking the longer period of limitation. In any case, Conveyors, by their nature, can never be cleared in a fully assembled condition and they have always to be cleared in CKD condition or SKD condition. In support of his above submission, he placed reliance upon the following decisions :- (i) 2000 (115) E.L.T. 35 (S.C.) - National Radio & Electronics Co. Ltd. v. CCE (ii) 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) - Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Co. v. CCE (iii) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9) E.L.T. 579 (Tribunal) - Nervy Lock Company v. CCE. 7. Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, learned SDR for the Revenue reiterates the reasoning of the authorities below. He submits that the appellants having cleared the parts and not the complete machine or Material Handling Equipment, were liable to pay duty on the goods as parts under sub-heading 8431.00. In this connection, he draws our attention to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Space Age Engineering Project reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 544, wherein it was observed that the Conveyor Parts manufactured at the assessee's factory and removed to site of erection cannot be called collection of parts of the conveyor system. As such, he submits that by applying the ratio of the said decision, n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10. After giving our careful consideration to the submissions of both sides, we find that the issue before us is whether the Material Handling Equipments cleared in CKD condition have to be assessed to duty as Material Handling Equipments or as parts. The reasoning of the Commissioner in his impugned Order is that even if all the parts cleared from the appellants' factory may collectively constitute a machine, the classifications are still to be done as parts because there is a specific separate heading for parts. We do not find any merits in the above reasoning of the adjudicating authority. If that be so, as rightly contended by the learned Advocate, the entry under heading 84.28 would become redundant inasmuch as the Conveyors and Mater....