9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (6) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have claimed the classification of the impugned goods under T.I. 68. It is absurd to claim classification under T.I. 30D and simultaneously endorse a remark that the classification list is filed under protest. Therefore, the so-called protest letter, or the remarks relating to lodging of the classification list under this protest should have been totally ignored by the department, as this protest is not the protest contemplated under Rule 233D. When the classification list approved by the Assistant Collector without modifying the classification list, the appellants cannot complain that they were aggrieved by the order of the approval. The only course open to them is to claim refund under Section 11B of the Act. 4.2 On the merits of the issue, I observe that I have already examined the correct classification of stators and rotors manufactured, in the course of manufacture of monobloc pumps and had held in my order-in-appeal No. 2/85 (CBE), dated 5-1-1985 that these goods are correctly classifiable as parts of electric motors. Following the ratio of this decision, I hold that appellants request for classification of stators and rotors under T.I. 68 is not sustainable. Copy of m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before lower authorities that classification of the goods under Tariff Item 30D was also approved by the Assistant Collector and therefore, issue of show cause notice by the Range Superintendent is not valid; that the classification can be reviewed only by an authority higher than Assistant Collector and not by the Range Superintendent. It was argued before lower authorities that the electric motor was not coming into existence in an identifiable manner in a monobloc as admitted by the department and for that reason independent existence of stators and rotors is ruled out as the shaft is common to rotors and pump and casting is common to stators and pumps. It was also argued that component parts of monobloc pump are not coming under the purview of Tariff Item 30A since there was no sub-entry under T.I. 30A. It was also submitted by the appellants before the lower authorities that the stators and rotors portions of monobloc pump are not interchangeable with the stators and rotors of electric motors since they are of specific design. It was also pleaded that stators and rotors of DC generator and those of alternator are not liable to duty and in the same manner, the stators and ro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be quashed. In support of his contention, he cited and relied upon the following case law : (a)Quadromatic Engg. Pvt Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 452 (Tribunal) (b)Collector of Central Excise v. Mahendra Engg. Works reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 134 (T) (c)Sahney Paris Rhone Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 13 (SC). (d)Paharpur Cooling Towers Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 18 (SC). The learned Counsel also referred to a copy of Baroda Collectorate Trade Notice No. 110/81, dated 1-5-1981, CBEC Circular dated 4-2-1981, CBEC Circular dated 13-12-1989, CBEC Circular dated 25-9-1986, Ministry of Finance letter dated 18-2-1975 and CBEC letter dated 19-7-1974 in support of his contentions. 4. Shri Sharad Bhansali, the learned SDR appearing for the respondent submitted that the classification list was finally approved by the Assistant Collector who was competent to do it, that there was no cause for appeal inasmuch as the appellants themselves had requested the classification of rotors and stators manufactured by them under the then Central Excise Tariff Item 30D; tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able under T.I. 68, that this clearly shows that there was a dispute in regard to not only the classification of the goods but also in respect of rate of duty. Since the classification generally attracts under different T.I. a different rate of duty and therefore, the protest though recorded in the classification list can be treated as a protest under Rule 233B. 6. The Department relied heavily on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of SRF Industrial Fabrics cited (supra) [paras 5-7] are as under : ***** 6A. On the issue whether the show cause notice was valid when the Assistant Collector had approved the classification list classifying the item under 30D as was claimed by the appellants, we observe that the admitted position is that the appellants in the remarks column of the classification list had indicated that the product manufactured by them was not classifiable under the then T.I. 30D but was classifiable under the T.I. 68. Thus, the position appears that the department wanted the appellants to submit the classification list under T.I. 30D perhaps in compliance of this verbal instruction of the department, the appellants in the column of Tariff Item indicated 30D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 110/81, dated 1-5-1981. Further, in the Ministry of Finance Circular dated 4-2-1981, it was clarified that rotors and stators forming part of any driving mechanism built into any such machine have to pay duty under T.I. 30(4) [presently Item 30D] prior to their removal for use as component parts. It was also clarified that in the case of Monobloc pumps where electric motor does not come into existence in an identifiable manner and is not separable, its classification under Item 30 may not be warranted. In such cases, the casing and shaft is common to the pump as well as to the rotors and stators. Although, electric motor as such does not come into existence independently in such instances the manufacture of rotors and stators cannot be denied. Rotors and Stators forming component parts of monobloc pumps in question will have to pay duty under Item 30(4) [presently Item 30(D)] before their removal for the manufacture of mono bloc pumps. As against this, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Paris Rhone Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise (supra) held that self-starter motor is an electric motor fitted with additional item ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cast rotors). Explanation I - In the case of any multispeed motor, the highest rated output of the motor shall be deemed to be the rated output of the motor. Explanation II - This item does not include motors specially designed for use in gramphones or record players and all parts of such motors. Explanation III - This Item includes motors equipped with gears or gear boxes. It would be seen that what is included in the Tariff Entry 30D is part of electric motors (including die-cast rotors) All the evidence on record points out that rotors and stators manufactured by the appellants are of a specific design for use in mono bloc pumps. It has also been brought on record that these rotors and stators are not interchangeable and cannot be used in electric motors. Having regard to this fact and following the rulings of the Apex Court in the cases cited above, we hold that rotors and stators manufactured by the appellants and captively used for manufacture of monobloc pump sets shall be classifiable not under Item 30D but under the then Tariff Item 68. 9. Having regard to the above findings, the appeal is allowed. Consequential relief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
