2002 (5) TMI 768 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification and duty liability on humidification system ducts under Tariff sub-heading 7308.90; Eligibility for exemption under Notification Nos. 61/90, 41/94; Penalty imposition under Rule 209A.

Analysis:
1. The appeals arose from an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, regarding the classification and duty liability on Humidification system ducts under Tariff sub-heading 7308.90. The Commissioner held that the ducts are classifiable under this sub-heading and eligible for exemption under Notification Nos. 61/90, 41/94, exempting goods fabricated at the site for construction work from duty. The penalty against one party was dropped due to no duty liability against the main assessee.

2. The Revenue reiterated its grounds challenging the Commissioner's order, arguing that the duct assembly does not qualify for the exemption as it is not a part of construction work. The Revenue contended that the duty demand should be confirmed and penalty imposed, denying the benefit of the notification. The Revenue sought to set aside the Commissioner's order based on these arguments.

3. The representatives for the parties submitted their arguments and referred to past judgments, including one involving the same parties. They highlighted that the issue had been previously considered and decided in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the ducts are parts of structures classifiable under Chapter Heading 73.08 and eligible for exemption under the notification. They urged for the dismissal of the appeal based on these grounds.

4. Upon considering the submissions and reviewing past judgments, the Tribunal found that the issue was already settled in the assessee's favor. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order granting the benefit of the exemption notification, as the ducts were deemed parts of structures under Chapter Heading 73.08 and eligible for exemption. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals, citing the previous judgment and confirming the benefit of the notification.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the issue had been conclusively decided in favor of the assessee in previous cases, and therefore, the appeals lacked merit. Following the precedent set in earlier judgments, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals, affirming the benefit of the exemption notification for the ducts under consideration.