9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (11) TMI 434 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Classification of Supporting Masts for duty exemption under Notification No. 4/97-C.E. Analysis: The dispute in the appeal centered around whether Supporting Masts, falling under heading 7308.20, supplied to the Telecommunication Department, would qualify for exemption under Notification No. 4/97-C.E. The notification specified a 13% duty rate for equipment for rural telecommunication networks listed in List 4, which did not include Supporting Masts. The appellant argued that as the main distribution frame used by the Telecommunication Department, the Supporting Masts should be subject to the lower duty rate of 13% and sought a refund for the excess duty paid at 15%. The lower authorities determined that the Supporting Masts, classified under chapter No. 7308 as metal structures, did not meet the criteria for classification under tariff heading 85.25, as they primarily served to hold antennas and solar plates without performing any distribution function. The appellant contended that the Supporting Masts, specifically a SS Mast of 15-meter height supplied to the Telecommunication Department, should be classified under tariff sub-heading No. 8525.00 as a main distribution frame to benefit from the notification. However, the authorities maintained that since there was a specific tariff heading 7308.20 for structures like Masts, they could not be classified under Chapter 85. During the proceedings, the appellant's consultant reiterated their arguments but failed to provide any additional grounds to support their position. The tribunal concurred with the lower authorities, concluding that Masts, being structures falling under Chapter Heading 7308, were not classifiable under Chapter 85. Consequently, the benefit of the notification, applicable only to equipment for rural telecommunications under Chapter 85, could not be extended to the Supporting Masts. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the lower authorities upholding the duty payment at 15% was affirmed.
|
