2016 (6) TMI 511 - AT - Central Excise

Calsiffication of Ladle Transfer Car (LTC) - Revenue intended to classify the product under Central Excise Tariff Heading No.8603 as self- Propelled Rolling Stock whereas the appellant classified the said product under Heading 8454 - Held that - In an integrated steel plant molten hot metal iron is produced in electric arc furnace. The molten metal is tapped into a ladle which is placed on a car. The ladle in the said car moves on a monorail to a refining furnace where further processes like mixing with other metal and sending it to casting section for further process is done As decided in case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 2000 (11) TMI 236 - CEGAT KOLKATA ladle cars meant for receiving molten metal from a furnace is specifically mentioned in heading no.8454 - Demand set aside.

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over the classification of Ladle Transfer Car (LTC) under Central Excise Tariff Headings 8603 and 8454.

Analysis:
1. The appeal concerned the classification of a Ladle Transfer Car (LTC) by the appellant, engaged in manufacturing M.S. Ingots and engineering goods. The Revenue sought to classify the LTC under Central Excise Tariff Heading No. 8603 as self-Propelled Rolling Stock, while the appellant classified it under Heading 8454, which covers parts of converters, ladles, and casting machines used in metallurgy. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order classifying the LTC under 8603, leading to the appellant's appeal.

2. The appellant argued that the LTC should be classified under CETH 8454.90 as it is designed for accommodating ladles carrying hot metal in steel-making processes. Referring to the HSN Explanatory Notes on "Ladles," the appellant contended that providing an under-frame to ladles does not alter the classification under CETH 8454. The appellant cited precedents like Larsen & Toubro Ltd. and Steel Authority of India Ltd. to support their classification.

3. The Revenue, on the other hand, supported the lower authorities' findings and relied on the decision in the case of Bhilai Engg. Corporation Ltd., as confirmed by the Chattisgarh High Court. They argued that the LTC should be classified under 8603. The Tribunal's decision in Bhilai Engg. Corporation Ltd. was emphasized by the Revenue.

4. After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal deliberated on the correct classification of the LTC. In an integrated steel plant scenario described, where molten metal is transferred using ladles on cars for further processing, the Tribunal referenced the Larsen & Toubro Ltd. case. The Tribunal highlighted that ladles, even with under-carriages, remain classified under Heading 84.54, as per HSN Explanatory Notes.

5. The Tribunal found the Revenue's reliance on the Bhilai Engineering Corporation Ltd. case inappropriate, as it concerned a different type of car. The Tribunal reiterated the principles from Larsen & Toubro Ltd., emphasizing that ladle cars specified for receiving molten metal fall under Heading 8454. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, aligning with the classification under 8454 for the LTC.