1981 (12) TMI 37 - HC - Central Excise

Ice Cream Combination Cooler - Liability to Duty - Classification - Finding of Fact - Not Challenged

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Entry 29A of Schedule I to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 regarding the liability for duty on an Ice Cream Combination Cooler sold by the petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case is whether the Ice Cream Combination Cooler sold by the petitioner falls under Entry 29A of the Central Excise Tariff. The Collector of Customs and Central Excise, as well as the Central Board of Excise and Customs, found that Entry 29A was attracted, making the petitioner liable for duty. The petitioner challenged these orders, leading to the present proceedings.

2. Entry 29A of the Central Excise Tariff pertains to refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances and machinery. The key consideration is whether the Cooler was sold as a ready assembled unit. The facts revealed that the Cooler was assembled at the buyer's premises using components purchased by the petitioner. The Appellate Collector in a similar case found that such Coolers are not ordinarily sold as ready assembled units, thus not falling under Entry 29A. This finding was crucial in determining the nature of installation required for such Coolers.

3. Referring to a judgment by the Bombay High Court, it was established that the installation process plays a vital role in determining the applicability of Entry 29A. If the installation process is elaborate and the Cooler cannot be readily sold as a finished product, then Entry 29A does not apply. The absence of evidence on the complexity of installation in the present case led the court to rely on the Appellate Collector's previous finding, which was unchallenged by the Department, to conclude that the Cooler in question does not fall under Entry 29A.

4. The court found that the orders confirming the duty liability were not reasonably based on evidence. The facts presented clearly aligned with the principle established in the Bombay High Court judgment. Consequently, the court declared the orders invalid and quashed them, ruling in favor of the petitioner. No costs were awarded in this judgment.