1984 (1) TMI 319 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of wooden cabinet and cooling coils as excisable goods under Central Excise duty.
2. Interpretation of item 29A of the Tariff regarding parts of refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances.
3. Application of precedents in similar cases to determine excisability of the items in question.

Analysis:
1. The case involves the classification of a wooden cabinet and cooling coils as excisable goods under Central Excise duty. The appellant, a small milk vendor, assembled a makeshift contrivance for milk cooling using a second-hand air compressor, copper tubes, and a wooden cabinet. The Central Excise officers seized these items, alleging they were dutiable as parts of refrigerating machinery. The Deputy Collector held that the wooden cabinet and cooling coils were meant for use in refrigeration machinery and attracted Central Excise duty. The Appellate Collector upheld this decision, imposing penalties and demanding duty payment. The appellants argued that the items were not excisable goods, citing precedents supporting their claim.

2. The interpretation of item 29A of the Tariff regarding parts of refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances was crucial in this case. The Deputy Collector and the Appellate Collector considered the wooden cabinet and cooling coils as parts falling under item 29A of the Central Excise Tariff. They held that these parts were dutiable as they were used in assembling a milk cooler, which was deemed a refrigeration appliance. The appellants contested this classification, asserting that the items did not meet the criteria for excisability under item 29A(3) of the Tariff. They argued that the items were not saleable parts of refrigeration machinery and should not be subject to Central Excise duty.

3. The application of precedents played a significant role in determining the excisability of the items in question. The appellants cited cases such as Vadilal Ice & Cold Storage v. Union of India and Mother India Refrigeration Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Supdt. of Central Excise to support their appeal. These cases emphasized that parts of refrigeration appliances must be saleable or offered for sale as assembled units to be subject to Central Excise duty. The Bench considered these precedents and concluded that the makeshift contrivance for milk cooling assembled by the appellants did not qualify as excisable under item 29A(3) of the Tariff. Therefore, the Bench set aside the order of the Appellate Collector and allowed the appeal based on the interpretation of relevant precedents and the Tariff provisions.