2004 (10) TMI 489 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved: Classification of goods as pre-fabricated buildings under Heading 94.06 or as components under Heading 7308.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.

In the case before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the issue revolved around the classification of goods manufactured by M/s. Decostyle Technicals (P) Ltd. The central question was whether these goods should be classified as pre-fabricated buildings under Heading 94.06 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act or as components under Heading 7308.90 of the Tariff.

The Tribunal heard arguments from both sides, with the Appellants contending that the goods they produced, such as links, balls, foot plates, and wooden panels, did not qualify as pre-fabricated buildings. The Tribunal noted that the goods in question, including various parts and components, lacked the essential character of pre-fabricated buildings as defined in Note 4 to Chapter 94. The note specifies that pre-fabricated buildings are structures finished in the factory or assembled on-site, like housing, offices, schools, or garages. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the claim that assembling the manufactured goods would result in a pre-fabricated building.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the demand for duty, as it found no error in the original order. However, recognizing that the issue primarily concerned classification, the Tribunal ruled that no penalty should be imposed on the appellants. Thus, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty while upholding the duty demand.

This judgment highlights the importance of correctly classifying goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act and the specific criteria for defining pre-fabricated buildings. It also emphasizes the distinction between components and finished products in the context of excise duty classification.