2002 (4) TMI 524 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal in hearing appeals.
2. Liability of duty on hydraulic lifts and parts assembly.
3. Applicability of previous Tribunal decisions and Board's instructions.

Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal:
The representative for the appellant argued that since the main records of the company were available at the registered office in Calcutta, and the appeal was filed before the Tribunal in Calcutta, the case should be retained and heard at the East Regional Bench in Calcutta. The Tribunal noted that as per CEGAT's Public Notice, appeals could be heard where the Head Office or Registered Office of the appellant is located. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to be retained in Calcutta, and the Stay Petition was taken up for hearing.

2. Liability of duty on hydraulic lifts and parts assembly:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing parts of hydraulic lifts and purchasing some parts externally for assembly, raised the issue of whether duty should be paid on the hydraulic lifts, including their operation of erection and installation. The appellant referred to a previous decision by the South Regional Bench and argued that the installation of lifts does not amount to manufacturing excisable goods. Citing instructions from the Central Board of Excise and Customs, the appellant requested the appeal to be allowed based on previous Tribunal decisions and the Board's clarifications. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and previous decisions, allowed the appeal and granted any consequential reliefs in accordance with the law.

3. Applicability of previous Tribunal decisions and Board's instructions:
The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments presented by both the appellant's consultant and the Revenue's representative. By analyzing the previous decisions of the Tribunal, especially the case from the South Regional Bench, and the instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs regarding lifts and escalators, the Tribunal found that the appellant's case was covered by the established precedents. Relying on the ratio of the Tribunal's previous decisions and the Board's Circular, the Tribunal allowed the appeal after granting the Stay Petition and stated that any consequential reliefs would be provided to the appellants as per the law.