9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (9) TMI 114 - HC - Central ExciseClassification of aluminium grills, dampers, and diffusers under the Central Excise Tariff Act - Validity of the impugned Circular dated 13-9-2000 issued by the CBEC - HELD THAT - We have carefully perused the judgment of the CEGAT, Bangalore Bench in Airgrill Industries v. Commissioner, Central Excise 2001 (4) TMI 306 - CEGAT, BANGALORE and we are in respectful agreement with the same. Since we agree with the reasonings given in the judgment of the CEGAT it is not necessary for us to repeat the said reasoning given by the CEGAT in its judgment again as we are in full agreement with the same and are endorsing the same. It may be mentioned that the department had throughout classified the product of the petitioner under Tariff Entry Chapter 7613.90. This is evident from the orders of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Noida dated 19-4-1993 vide Annxeure-1 to the writ petition and the Circular/Trade Notice dated 16-10-1986 issued by the Baroda Collectorate, copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It is also evident from the report of the Commissioner, Central Excise dated 7-9-2000 vide Annexure-12 to the writ petition. In our opinion in view of the clear finding in the report of the Central Excise Commissioner dated 7-9-2000 Annexure-12 to the petition as well as in the order of the CEGAT, Bangalore that the aluminium grills are of different sizes and are utilised in false ceiling and walls connected with the ducts in the centrally air-conditioning plant or hot-air for heating in the building and ventilation system which are installed in the building, the products, manufactured by the petitioner can only be classified under Chapter 76 as articles of aluminium. The same are admittedly not sent to the manufacturers of air-conditioners for use in air-conditioning machines. Hence even assuming that the order of the CEGAT, Bangalore Bench has not merged into the order of the Supreme Court we are satisfied on merits that the order is correct. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the questions of classification of the petitioner's product should be left to the Central Excise authorities and hence the petitioner has an alternative remedy before such authorities and this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We cannot accept this submission for two reasons. Firstly, a Circular dated 13-9-2000 has been issued by the CBEC and hence obviously the Central Excise authorities cannot take a view contrary to that circular. Secondly, the Commissioner's report dated 7-9-2000 and the CEGAT, Bangalore Bench have discussed the factual matters connected to this controversy in detail, and hence it would be a mere duplication of work if again the matter is investigated, especially when the order of the CEGAT, Bangalore Bench has been upheld by the Supreme Court 2001 (9) TMI 1140 - SC ORDER . It has been held in M/s. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. 2002 (12) TMI 577 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , that where the controversy is likely to be of a recurring nature and involves only questions of law then it should be decided by the High Court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. In our opinion only a question of law is now involved because there is now no factual dispute since the Commissioner, Central Excise as well as the CEGAT, Banglore Bench have investigated the facts in detail and have given their findings. For the reasons given above the petition is allowed. The impugned Circular dated 13-9-2000 is quashed. The respondents are restrained from imposing any excise duty on the grills, diffusers and dampers manufactured by them under Tariff Entry 84.15. They should be classified only under Tariff Entry 76 of the Central Excise Tariff Act as held by the CEGAT, Bangalore Bench.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of aluminium grills, dampers, and diffusers under the Central Excise Tariff Act. 2. Validity of the impugned Circular dated 13-9-2000 issued by the CBEC. 3. Applicability of the doctrine of merger in the context of the Supreme Court's dismissal of an appeal. Summary: 1. Classification of Aluminium Grills, Dampers, and Diffusers: The petitioner, a company manufacturing aluminium grills, dampers, and diffusers, contended that these products should be classified under Chapter 76.16 of the Central Excise Tariff Act as articles of aluminium. The petitioner argued that these products are used for general purposes, such as ventilation systems in buildings, and not specifically as parts of air-conditioning machines. The products are tailor-made as per the specifications of buyers and are used in various premises for ventilation and interior decoration. The petitioner emphasized that these products do not involve any change in temperature or chemical process and are not integral parts of air-conditioning machines. 2. Validity of the Impugned Circular Dated 13-9-2000: The petitioner challenged the Circular dated 13-9-2000 issued by the CBEC, which classified aluminium and steel grills used in air-conditioners under Entry 84.15. The petitioner argued that the CBEC's circular was misconceived as it did not consider the factual position that the products manufactured by the petitioner are not used in air-conditioning machines but are general-purpose aluminium products. The petitioner relied on previous classifications and trade notices, including a specific order by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Noida, which classified these products under Chapter 76.16. The petitioner also cited a judgment by the CEGAT, Bangalore Bench, which held that these products are classifiable under Chapter 76, and the Supreme Court's dismissal of an appeal against this judgment. 3. Applicability of the Doctrine of Merger: The court discussed the applicability of the doctrine of merger in the context of the Supreme Court's dismissal of an appeal against the CEGAT's judgment. The court noted that while the dismissal of an SLP without reasons does not amount to a merger, the dismissal of an appeal under Section 35L(b) by the Supreme Court would amount to a merger, making the judgment of the CEGAT binding. The court agreed with the CEGAT's reasoning and held that the aluminium grills, dampers, and diffusers manufactured by the petitioner should be classified under Chapter 76 as articles of aluminium. Conclusion: The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned Circular dated 13-9-2000, and restrained the respondents from imposing any excise duty on the grills, diffusers, and dampers manufactured by the petitioner under Tariff Entry 84.15. The court held that these products should be classified under Tariff Entry 76 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, as held by the CEGAT, Bangalore Bench.
|
