2001 (11) TMI 845 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Correct classification of certain industrial machinery and equipment under Central Excise Tariff.
2. Inclusion of the value of certain components in the value of the machinery.
3. Alleged evasion of duty in respect of certain bought-out items.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Correct Classification of Industrial Machinery and Equipment:

The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of industrial machinery and equipment, specifically electronic solid flow feeder, electronic solid flow meter, impact scale, raw meal feeding system, coal meal feeding system, and mill dosing system. Initially, these items were classified under Tariff Heading 84.79, which covers "machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 84." However, the Central Excise authorities reclassified these items under Tariff Heading 8423, which pertains to "weighing machinery, including weight-operated counting or checking machines."

The Commissioner, after reviewing the literature and evidence, concluded that these machines were used for electronic dynamic weighing and feeding equipment, recording feed rates of flowing materials in terms of weight per unit of time. Consequently, he classified the equipment under Heading 8423, confirming differential duty demand and imposing penalties.

The appellants contested this classification, arguing that the equipment does not weigh materials but ensures a steady flow of raw materials into manufacturing machinery. They emphasized that the primary function of these machines is to regulate the rate of discharge of materials, not to weigh them. They also pointed out that in trade and commerce, these machines are not bought and sold as weighing machines but as material handling equipment.

Upon careful review, it was determined that the equipment in question is designed to ensure the rate of flow of raw materials in line with the manufacturing capacity of receiving machines. The machines' performance and accuracy are guaranteed concerning the rate of flow, not the accuracy of weighment. Therefore, these machines do not qualify as weighing machinery under Tariff Heading 8423.

2. Inclusion of the Value of Certain Components in the Value of the Machinery:

The components in question include feed hoppers, vibrating feeders, etc. The appellants argued that these items are separate and independent equipment, not parts or components of the solid flow feeder. They also stated that duty had been paid on these items as applicable under the Central Excise Tariff, and there was no requirement to pay duty again under Heading 84.23 as weighing machinery.

The adjudicating authority revised the classification of these items only where the rate of duty under Heading 84.23 was higher than the original assessment rate. The appellants contended that the differential duty recovery was not based on the merits but on the authorities' intent to levy a higher duty rate.

Given the conclusion that the main equipment is not classifiable under sub-heading 84.23, these items would not be classifiable under tariff sub-heading 84.23 as parts. Therefore, the demand for differential duty is not maintainable.

3. Alleged Evasion of Duty in Respect of Certain Bought-Out Items:

The bought-out items include load cells, tachogenerators, differential counters, endless conveyor belts, and other components. The Commissioner demanded duty on these items, considering them inputs in the manufacture of the main machinery. The appellants argued that these inputs were supplied as spare parts for repair/replacement and not assembled into new machinery. They pointed out that no manufacturing activity was carried out on these goods, and they were sold in the same state as bought.

The appellants had informed the Assistant Collector of Central Excise about the resale of inputs as trading activity, and permission was granted for the resale of inputs under Rule 57F(i)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Since these items were not manufactured by the appellants, no liability to pay duty arose, as excise duty is contingent upon manufacture.

Based on these findings, the demand for duty and penalties imposed in the impugned orders were deemed to have no legal justification. The appeals were allowed, and consequent relief was extended to the appellants.

← Previous Next →