2000 (6) TMI 232 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of aluminium windows, doors, and their frames.
2. Consequential demand for duty.

Summary:

Issue 1: Classification of Aluminium Windows, Doors, and Their Frames

The primary issue in both appeals is the classification of aluminium windows, doors, and their frames manufactured by the assessee. The assessee contended that their products should be classified u/s 7610.10 of the CETA, which pertains to aluminium structures and parts thereof, including doors and windows. This classification would result in a nil rate of duty under Notification No. 180/88-CE. Conversely, the Revenue argued that these products should be classified u/s 8607.00 of the CETA, which covers parts of railway or tramway locomotives or rolling stocks, as the products were specifically designed for use in railway coaches.

The Tribunal concluded that the products in question are not meant for use in general aluminium structures but are specifically designed for railway coaches. Therefore, they should be classified u/s 8607.00 of the CETA as parts of railway rolling stock. The Tribunal affirmed the Collector's order dated 15-06-1994, which classified the products under sub-heading 8607.00, and set aside the Collector (Appeals) order dated 30-01-1995, which had classified the products under sub-heading 7610.10.

Issue 2: Consequential Demand for Duty

The second issue pertains to the duty demand of Rs. 22,59,879.16 confirmed by the Collector for the period 1-8-1993 to 1-1-1994. The assessee argued that they were initially informed by the Excise department that their products were classifiable u/s 7610.10 and were exempt from duty. Based on this information, they cleared the goods without payment of duty. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee acted on the Excise department's initial classification advice and should not be penalized for the department's subsequent change in stance.

The Tribunal ordered that the duty liability be recalculated after allowing the assessee Modvat credit and the benefits of relevant notifications as an SSI unit. The part of the Collector's order confirming the duty demand was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to rework the duty amount accordingly.

Conclusion:

The appeal by the Revenue (No. E/884/95-B) was accepted, and the order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 30-01-1995 was set aside. The appeal by the assessee (No. E/1797/94-B) was disposed of by affirming the classification u/s 8607.00 but setting aside the duty demand, with instructions to rework the duty after allowing the relevant benefits.