9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 838 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - Steel Bakhari or Tin Containers used for storing grains - classified under CTH 7309 or under CTH 8436? - Held that - the term machinery has been used in the most expansive sense to cover even the apparatus or equipment or appliance which need not be machine. The word equipment has been defined in Compact Oxford Dictionary as the items needed for a particular activity or purpose. On the reading of the dictionary meaning it is clear that if a particular item is used for a particular purpose, will be equipment or apparatus. In the present case since the Steel Bakhari is used for storing seeds and is needed for the said purpose, is an equipment or apparatus and thus being the item of agriculture, is classifiable under entry 84.36 leviable to NIL rate of duty - Reliance in also placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Thermax Ltd. V. CCE 1995 (11) TMI 139 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI which has held grain storage systemas classifiable under heading 84.36. Classification of goods - Tractor Trollywithout Hub and Tyres & Parts - Held that - where it has clearly been stated by the Appellant that the tractor trolley in question is not attached with any wheels or tyres, hub and motor, the same has been wrongly classified as a trailer or vehicle under Chapter Sub Heading 8716.00 as opposed to 84.32/84.36 claimed by the Appellant. Classification of Machine Base (Theeha) - classified under CTH 7326 or under CTH 8433? - Held that - as the item in question is a part of the thresher machine, it will be covered within the Chapter Sub heading 8433 and nilrate of duty will apply to the same. The thresher machine cannot work without the stand (theeha) as it will be of use only when the machine is placed on the theeha/base. Classification of Tractor Phar (Hal-Ki-Nok) - classified under CTH 8201 or under CTH 8432? - Held that - Agricultural, Horticultural or forestry machinery for soil preparation or cultivation; lawn or sports ground rollers at nil rate of duty as prescribed for goods within such classification. The explanation of machineryas hereinabove is adopted for the purpose of classifying the said item. Classification of Phawara blade/Belch (both without stick) - classified under CTH 8201 or 8432? - Held that - a spade, in commercial parlance cannot be without a stick or handle - It has been stated by the Appellant that the stick or handle is not provided by them and the same has not been refuted by the Department. The Adjudicating Authority has wrongly denied the benefit of nilrate of duty to the said items by incorrectly classifying them under Chapter Sub Heading 8201 as the items in question are both without handle but are used for soil preparation and cultivation and are therefore classifiable under Chapter Sub Heading 8432. Classification of Tasla - classified under chapter 73 or under chapter 84? - Held that - item is classifiable under Chapter Sub Heading 8433 which reads as Harvesting or threshing machinery, including straw or fodder balers; grass or hay movers; machines for cleaning, sorting or grading eggs, fruit or other agricultural produce, other than machinery of heading 8437as the item in question is used for the preparation and cultivation of soil and for the preparation and cultivation of soil and for purposes of cleaning, sorting and grading of agricultural produce. SSI exemption - Steel Almirah & Steel Furniture - It is submitted that the exemption under N/N. 198/87-CE has been wrongly denied to the Appellant for the goods falling under the Chapter Heading 94.03 - Held that - It is an admitted position that the Appellant is a KVIC unit Para 21 of the Order-in-Original . Further, it is also not disputed that the goods are genuine products of village industry or that the goods are marketed by or with assistance of the Khadi & Village Industries Commission - In the present case the intention of the notification has been satisfied and the certificate from U.P. Khadi & Village India Board which is the implementing agency of Khadi & Village Industries Commission, recognizing Appellant as a KVIC Unit, satisfies the condition of the Notification including the purpose for which exemption was granted. It is submitted that the exemption has been wrongly declined on the sole ground that the certificate is not from KVIC while recognizing that the Unit is a KVIC Unit. Exemption under Sr. No. 73.10 of the Notification No. 3/2001 dated 01.03.2001, 4/97-CE dated 01.03.1997, 5/98 dated 02.06.1998, 5/99 dated 28.02.1999, 6/2000 dated 01.03.2000 & 3/2001 dated 01.03.2001 - Held that - the exemption under Notification No. 4/97 dated 01.03.1997, 5/98 dated 02.06.1998, 5/99 dated 09.02.1999, 6/2000 dated 01.03.2000 & 3/2001 dated 01.03.2001 is available to the Appellant as the Appellant had adduced sufficient evidence to substantiate its claim and the Order-in-Original, to that extent, is liable to be set aside - the Department has not discharged the burden of proof for disputing the classification as they have adduced no positive evidence to refute the claims of the appellant and therefore, the demands are unsustainable. Extended period of limitation - Held that - the submissions of the appellant are uncontroverted more particularly under the admitted fact that there was no power connection in the factory premises, at the time of inspection and/or drawal of proceedings and there is no investigation by the Revenue, as to the period, during which the appellant had connection from the Electricity Department and other relevant fact like, number of units consumed, etc. It is admitted fact that they were using generator for running their welding machine and compressor. Under these admitted facts, we hold that the appellant is not liable to excise duty on the Steel Boxes & Almirah and they are entitled to exemption under Notification No. 30/2001-CE dated 01/03/2001. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to Exemption for Manufacturing Excisable Goods 2. Classification of Products 3. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation 4. Availability of Modvat/Cenvat Credit Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Exemption for Manufacturing Excisable Goods The primary issue was whether the appellant, M/s Kisan Gramodyog Sansthan (M/s KGS), was entitled to exemption as a KVIC unit affiliated with the U.P. Khadi Gramodyog Board or liable to Central Excise duty. The Revenue demanded Central Excise duty of ?60,88,148/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, with equal penalty under Section 11AC, additional penalties under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944, and Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and interest on the duty payable. 2. Classification of Products The appellant challenged the classification of their products by the Revenue, asserting that the items were wrongly classified and thus erroneously charged to duty. The detailed item-wise analysis is as follows: Steel Bakhari/Tin Container (Seeds Bin): - The appellant argued that these items, used for storing grains, should be classified under Tariff Entry 84.36 as agricultural equipment, not under Chapter Subheading 7309, which pertains to containers for liquid commodities. Tractor Trolley without Hub and Tyres & Parts: - The appellant contended that these should not be classified under Chapter Subheading 8716.00 as trailers but under Chapter 84, as they are not mechanically propelled and lack wheels or tyres. Machine Base (Theeha): - The appellant claimed this item, used for thresher installation, should be classified under Chapter Subheading 8433 as part of threshing machinery, not under 7326.90. Tractor Phar (Hal-Ki-Nok): - The appellant argued that this item should be classified under Chapter Subheading 8432 as agricultural machinery for soil preparation, not under 8201 as hand tools. Phawara Blade/Belch (without stick): - The appellant asserted these should be classified under Chapter Subheading 8432 for agricultural machinery, not under 8201 as hand tools. Tasla: - The appellant contended this item, used for agricultural purposes, should be classified under Chapter Subheading 8432 or 8433, not under 7326.90. Steel Almirah & Steel Furniture: - The appellant argued for exemption under Notification No. 198/87-CE, as they are a KVIC unit. The Tribunal found that the appellant complied with the conditions of the exemption notification, thus entitled to the benefit. Steel Boxes: - The appellant claimed these were manufactured without the aid of power and should be exempt under Notification No. 30/2001-CE. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's hypothesis of painting with power was unsubstantiated, thus granting the exemption. 3. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation The appellant argued that the extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked, as there was no intention to evade duty. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had a bona fide belief of non-excisability due to their KVIC status and the agricultural nature of their products. The Tribunal found no contumacious conduct or suppression of facts by the appellant. 4. Availability of Modvat/Cenvat Credit The appellant contended that even if any product was found dutiable, they were entitled to Modvat/Cenvat credit on raw materials. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant had purchased raw materials from UPSIDC, a registered dealer, and was entitled to pass on the Cenvat credit. The Tribunal found that the Revenue did not provide sufficient evidence to refute the appellant's claims. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the demand and penalties, holding that the appellant was entitled to exemptions under the relevant notifications. The Tribunal found that the Revenue misclassified the products and failed to substantiate their claims regarding the use of power in manufacturing. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the appellant was granted consequential benefits.
|
