2000 (5) TMI 285 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of PCC beams under Notification No. 59/90.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) confirming the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 59/90 on PCC beams by the Assistant Collector. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing cement concrete poles and beams, claimed classification under S. No. 8 of the Table annexed to the Exemption Notification No. 59/90. However, the Assistant Collector rejected this classification, stating that the appellants were not manufacturers of prefabricated buildings and did not declare that the beams were used as components of such buildings. Consequently, the classification was modified to S. No. 4, disallowing them the benefit of the exemption. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The central issue in this appeal revolved around whether the PCC beams manufactured by the appellants were covered under S. No. 8 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 59/90. The appellants argued that the beams fell under this category and were entitled to the exemption. On the contrary, the opposing argument contended that the beams did not meet the criteria of S. No. 8 and thus, the Collector (Appeals) decision was valid.

The relevant sub-heading 6807.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, under which PCC beams fall, includes blocks, slabs, lintels, concrete beams, and stairs constituting intermediates and components of prefabricated buildings. The Notification No. 59/90 exempts items that are intermediates and components of prefabricated buildings under a specific heading. The definition of "prefabricated buildings" was crucial, as it encompassed buildings finished in the factory or assembled on-site, such as housing, offices, schools, shops, etc.

The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) rightly rejected the appellants' claim that the PCC beams were covered under S. No. 8 of the Notification. The appellants were not engaged in manufacturing prefabricated buildings and had not declared the beams as components of such buildings in their classification list. Therefore, the beams did not qualify for the exemption under the Notification. The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the decision of the Collector (Appeals) that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 59/90.