2019 (4) TMI 1150 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - Aluminium and Zinc Castings and articles thereof - whether classified under Chapter Subheading 7907.90 and 7616.90 or under CSH 8708.00 as Motor vehicle parts? - demand of differential duty - HELD THAT - Considering the facts that the appellant did not have the facility of machining, grinding, finishing etc. in their factory premises as found by the officers of the department, and also end-use certificate produced by them that such processing are being carried out after being cleared from the premises of the appellant at the premises of the customer, we do not find any merit in the impugned order in classifying the product as motor vehicle parts, which is classifiable as casting under respective sub-headings as claimed by the Appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under different headings, Adjudication based on factory visit, End-use certificates validity

Classification of goods under different headings:
The case involved a dispute over the classification of goods manufactured by the appellant under different headings. The Department proposed to classify the goods under a specific heading, while the appellant classified them under different subheadings. The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration based on the process undertaken by the manufacturer. The appellant argued that the goods were used in various industries, including automobile industries, after further processes like machining, grinding, and drilling. The authorities below did not accept the end-use certificates provided by the appellant's customers, stating they were issued by private persons. The Tribunal, after reviewing the end-use certificates, found that the goods were subjected to further processing after leaving the appellant's premises, leading to a different classification than what was determined by the authorities.

Adjudication based on factory visit:
Initially, the Assistant Commissioner visited the factory premises of the appellant and did not find any facilities for machining or grinding. However, the adjudicating authority later confirmed the demands without visiting the factory, based on assumptions. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the end-use certificates issued by the customers, as directed by the Tribunal in a previous order. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of ascertaining the process undertaken by the appellant and considering the evidence presented before making a classification decision.

End-use certificates validity:
The appellant had produced end-use certificates from various customers to support their classification claims. The authorities had questioned the validity of these certificates, stating they were issued by private persons. However, the Tribunal reviewed the certificates and found that they clearly indicated further processes like machining, grinding, and drilling were carried out after the goods left the appellant's premises. The Tribunal considered these certificates along with the lack of facilities for such processes at the appellant's factory and concluded that the goods should be classified differently than what was determined by the authorities. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals with consequential relief, if any, as per law.