2016 (6) TMI 434 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of steam boilers - goods manufactured and cleared by the appellant after 16/3/1995 - Held that - On a specific query from the bench appellant could not produce copies of the contracts/purchase orders to substantiate whether complete boiler is ordered to be manufactured or only parts of the boiler are required to be manufactured. These factual submissions made by the appellant can be verified only by the Adjudicating authority. In the interest of justice, this matter is required to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration. Appellant should produce all the relied upon case laws/expert opinion before the adjudicating authority to establish that the finished goods supplied have the essential character of the steam boilers. Needless to say that an opportunity of personal hearing should be extended to the appellant by the adjudicating authority before deciding the issue in remand proceedings. Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 post 16/3/1995.

Comprehensive Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of Goods
The appellant argued that the goods manufactured by them, supplied in "Knock Down Condition," should be classified as steam boilers under sub-heading 8402.10 as per Rule 2 (a) of the Rules of interpretation to the Central Excise Tariff. They relied on an order-in-original passed by D.C., Central Excise, Sahabad, where similar goods were classified as boilers under 8402.10. Additionally, the appellant cited a case law where incomplete boilers were classified under 8402.10. However, it was noted that these references were not presented before the adjudicating authority. The appellant failed to provide copies of contracts/purchase orders to substantiate whether complete boilers or only parts were ordered. The Tribunal observed that the factual submissions needed verification by the Adjudicating authority and remanded the matter for further consideration. The appellant was directed to submit all relied upon case laws/expert opinions to establish the essential character of the steam boilers. The Tribunal emphasized that a personal hearing should be granted to the appellant during the remand proceedings for a fair decision.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for a de novo consideration of the classification issue. The appellant was instructed to provide all relevant case laws and expert opinions to support their classification argument. The importance of verifying factual submissions and granting a personal hearing to the appellant was highlighted for a just decision in the remand proceedings.