2007 (7) TMI 13 - AT - Central Excise

Classification Appellant contended that they have entitle for the benefit of Notification 155/86-C.E. on laboratory equipment (cooling) and laboratory centrifuges(cooling) Held that appellant contention is correct and allowed the appeal

Summary

Issues:
Central excise duty demand on laboratory equipment classified under CET sub-heading 8419.00 and eligibility for concessional rate of duty under Notification 155/86-C.E.

Analysis:
The appeals arose from the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, confirming a central excise duty demand on various laboratory equipment items. The items in question included B.O.D Incubator, Humidity Control Cabinet, Laboratory Low Temperature Cabinet, Blood Bank Storage Cabinet, Environmental Shaker, Low Temperature Bath, Seed Germinator, and Cooling Centrifuges. The Commissioner held these items to be classifiable under CET sub-heading 8419.00 and disallowed the benefit of concessional rate of duty under serial No. 3 of Notification 155/86-C.E. The reason provided was that the goods were considered refrigerating and air-conditioning machinery excluded from the coverage of the mentioned serial number of the notification.

Upon hearing both sides, it was established that the disputed items were equipped with air-conditioning or refrigeration systems, providing a change in temperature including cooling and condensing. The Tribunal referred to a previous case, Cintex Industrial Corporation v. CCE, Mumbai, where it was held that items working on the principles of refrigeration were not excluded from the coverage of Notification 155/86. Following the precedent set in the Cintex case and another case, CCE, Bangalore v. Hind High Vacuum Co. (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal extended the benefit of the concessional rate of duty under serial No. 3 of the notification to the items at serial Nos. 1 to 7 and the Cooling Centrifuges. The Tribunal concluded that the items were eligible for the benefit, setting aside the duty demand and penalties imposed on the partnership firm and its partner.

In summary, the judgment addressed the classification of laboratory equipment under a specific sub-heading and the eligibility for a concessional rate of duty under a particular notification. The decision relied on previous case law to determine that the disputed items, despite being equipped with refrigeration systems, were eligible for the concessional rate of duty as they worked on the principles of refrigeration and air-conditioning, not falling under the exclusion criteria of the notification.