2017 (7) TMI 236 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - boiler drums - chimney shells - ducts - fired heaters - radiation/convection coils - Held that - the first appellate authority has recorded finding that the description of the goods states that they are parts of the Boilers. Therefore, I find that they are rightly classified under Chapter Heading 84.02 by the original authority - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Classification of products under different chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis:
The judgment involves 13 appeals filed by a company against the re-classification of its products under various chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The company had initially classified its products under specific chapters, but the Assistant Commissioner ordered re-classification based on his interpretation. The first appellate authority remanded the matter for denovo adjudication, where the adjudicating authority upheld the re-classification sought by the Revenue. The company contested these decisions, leading to multiple rounds of denovo adjudication. The company argued that the lower authorities erred in classification, citing examples like accumulators and bullets classified under different headings by the department. The company contended that the items were used for specific purposes, such as storage of compressed gases in power plants. The company's counsel presented detailed arguments for each item manufactured, emphasizing the correct classification under specific chapters.

The Departmental Representative (DR) countered the company's claims, highlighting the findings of the first appellate authority supporting the re-classifications made by the Revenue. The DR specifically mentioned an issue regarding auxiliary plant for use with boilers and supported the authorities' conclusions. Upon careful consideration of both sides' submissions and reviewing the orders, the appellate tribunal found that the first appellate authority provided justifiable reasons for re-classifying the products. The tribunal referred to specific findings related to products like boiler drums, chimney shells, ducts, and others, agreeing with the classification under Chapter Heading 84.02. The tribunal noted that the first appellate authority had extensively analyzed various products manufactured by the company and found no technical literature presented by the company to counter the authorities' conclusions.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal upheld the impugned orders, rejecting the appeals filed by the company based on the detailed analysis and findings provided by the first appellate authority. The tribunal found no merit in the company's arguments and supported the re-classifications made by the lower authorities.