2012 (11) TMI 819 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of Notification No. 56/95 - Power Driven Pump Sets Held that - Board s Circular not only deals with classification but also underlines that I.C. Engine may be treated as an integral part of P.D. Pump. Moreover, diesel engine is an I.C. engine - Notification No. 56/95, dated 16-3-1995 exempts power-driven pumps primarily designed for handling water, namely, centrifugal pumps (horizontal or vertical), deep tube-well turbine pumps, submersible pumps, axial flow and mixed flow vertical pumps - Revenue s Appeals are dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Delay in filing applications for condonation of delay, classification of imported goods under Notification No. 10/2006-C.E., interpretation of "power-driven" pumps, relevance of Board's Circular, treatment of I.C. engine as integral part of power-driven water pump.

Analysis:

1. Delay in filing applications for condonation of delay: The Revenue filed applications for condonation of delay ranging from 61 to 86 days, which were condoned by the Tribunal based on the reasons explained in the applications.

2. Classification of imported goods under Notification No. 10/2006-C.E.: The Commissioner (Appeals) granted the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 10/2006-C.E. to the respondents, who imported vertical centrifugal water pumps for agriculture. The Revenue contended that the benefit was allowed based on a Board's Circular to settle a classification dispute.

3. Interpretation of "power-driven" pumps: The Revenue argued that the benefit of the Notification is available only to manufacturers producing power-driven pumps and I.C. Engines together, driven exclusively by electric power. They claimed that the imported goods were not manufactured together and did not qualify for the benefit.

4. Relevance of Board's Circular: The Respondent relied on a C.B.E.C. Circular to support their claim that power-driven water pumps are not necessarily required to be driven by electric power and can also be driven by a diesel engine. They argued that pump engines are manufactured separately by different manufacturers.

5. Treatment of I.C. engine as integral part of power-driven water pump: The Tribunal examined the goods declared in the Bill of Entry and found that the contention of the P.D. pumps and diesel engine being brought separately was contrary to the facts. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals') decision based on the Board's Circular, which clarified that an I.C. engine may be treated as an integral part of a power-driven pump.

6. Conclusion: The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's Appeals and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals') orders, dismissing the Revenue's Appeals. The Board's Circular supported the classification of the goods under the Notification, and the treatment of the I.C. engine as part of the power-driven pump was deemed appropriate based on the facts presented.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues involved in the case comprehensively, providing a clear understanding of the Tribunal's decision and the legal reasoning behind it.