1987 (10) TMI 154 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional conflict between the Appellate Collector and the Collector of Central Excise, Pune.
2. Classification of Hydraulic rivetting Guns under Central Excise Tariff Schedule.
3. Determination of whether the power pack, pipeline, and rivetting gun constitute a single machinery for excise duty purposes.

Jurisdictional Conflict:
The judgment involves a jurisdictional conflict between the Appellate Collector and the Collector of Central Excise, Pune. The Collector's order-in-revision was challenged on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction. The Appellate Tribunal held that the Collector did not have the authority to set aside the Assistant Collector's order since it had merged with the Appellate Collector's order before the revision was passed. The appeal was allowed based on the issue of jurisdiction without delving into the case's merits.

Classification of Hydraulic Rivetting Guns:
The case also dealt with the classification of Hydraulic rivetting Guns under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The Assistant Collector initially classified the guns under Item No. 68 but later reclassified them under Item No. 51A(ii) based on a notice issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune. The Appellate Tribunal analyzed the functionality of the rivetting guns, emphasizing that they operate on linear motion, not rotary motion typical of motors. Various expert opinions and definitions were considered to determine the nature of a motor. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the rivetting guns did not fall under Item No. 51A(ii) of the CET.

Classification of Machinery for Excise Duty:
The judgment addressed whether the power pack, pipeline, and rivetting gun should be considered a single machinery for excise duty purposes. The Tribunal noted that each component was manufactured separately at different factories and had distinct identities. It was argued that the connection via a pipeline did not transform them into a single piece of equipment. The Tribunal opined that although the rivetting guns were classified under Item No. 68 and not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 118/75, they should not be treated as a complete machinery chargeable under Item No. 68. Consequently, the rivetting guns were classified under Item No. 68 but were not considered part of a single piece of equipment for excise duty purposes.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal allowed Appeal No. 200/82 based on the lack of jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise, Pune. In Appeal No. 1628/81, the Tribunal determined that the rivetting guns should be classified under Item No. 68 but should not be considered part of a complete machinery chargeable under the same item. The judgment provided consequential relief to the appellants in both appeals.