9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.10 of the CETA by reversing the order in original of the Assistant Collector dated 9-9-1994 who held the classification under sub-heading 8607.00 of the CETA. Since in both the appeals common issue regarding classification of the products in question and consequential demand for duty, is involved, these are being disposed of by common order. 2. The facts giving rise to both these appeals are not much in dispute and these are: 3. The assessees M/s. Rail Tech, Kapurthala are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium windows, doors and their frames and these are solely and principally designed by them for the use in the railway coaches. They vide letters dated 27-12-1992, 4-1-1994 and 19-1-1994 were advised by the Superintendent of Central Excise Range, Kapurthala to obtain a Central Excise registration and maintain the Central Excise statutory records on the ground that their products merited classification under sub-heading 8607.00 of the schedule annexed to the CETA. They, however, contested this classification vide letters date 1-1-1994 and 13-1-1994 by pleading that their products were classifiable under sub-heading 7610.10 of the schedule annexed to the CETA. They according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and of Rs. 4,51,975.84, confirmed the demand of balance amount of Rs. 22,59,879.60 on the assessees. The assessees have come up in appeal bearing No. E/1797/94-D, against this order. 5. The appeal by the Revenue bearing No. E/884/95-B is the result of order in appeal dated 30-1-1995 passed by the Collector (Appeals) vide which he had reversed the order in original of the Assistant Collector dated 9-9-1994 classifying the products in question of the assessees under sub-heading 8607.00 of the CETA by holding the same classifiable under sub-heading 7610.10 6. The controversy in both these appeals thus centers round the question as to whether products in question (aluminium windows, doors and their frames) manufactured by the assessees are classifiable under sub-heading 7610.10 or 8607.00 of the schedule appended to the CETA. In order to resolve this controversy it would be beneficial to refer to both these sub-headings of the CETA. These sub-headings run as under :- Heading 76.10 7610.10 7610.90 86.07 8607 Aluminium structures(excluding pre-fabricated builidings of heading No. 94.06) and parts of structures for example, bridges, and bridge sections, towers, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing doors, windows and their frames and thresholds for doors refers to the ones which are meant for use in the structures as this entry is contained in the sub-heading of the main tariff heading 76.10 of the CETA. The entries in the Tariff heading and sub-heading have not to be read distinctively but collectively and in such a manner that the entry in the main Tariff Heading 76.10 does not become superfluous, redundant or in any manner isolated from its sub-heading entry. Therefore, only those doors, windows and their frames and threshold for doors, would be covered by sub-heading 7610.10 of the CETA which have relevance and use in the structures and not others. 10. In the instant case, admittedly, aluminium doors and windows manufactured by the assessees have no use or relevance in the structures. These are being manufactured by them on the drawings and specifications provided to them, by the railways, for their sole use in the railway coaches. These aluminium windows and doors, as not disputed by the counsel before us, are neither marketable in the market nor can be used in any structure. He has rather fairly conceded that these can be solely used in the railway coaches. That ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d down in that case by the Larger Bench fully applies to the facts of the present case also. 12. Consequently, the impugned order in original dated 15-06-1994 (appealed against by the assessee) so for as it relates to the classification of the products in question under sub-heading 8607.00 of the CETA, is confirmed, while order dated 30-01-1995 of the Collector (Appeals) (appealed against by the Revenue) classifying the products under sub-heading 7610.10 of the CETA is set aside (sic) appealed against by the assesses) cannot be legally sustained. The Collector himself in para 20 of the impugned order had observed that the assessees were informed vide letter dated 8-10-1991 by the Assistant Collector (Technical) Central Excise, Chandigarh and also by the Divisional Assistant Collector, Jullundhur vide letter dated 10-10-1991, in response to their letter dated 16-9-1991 which they sent before the commencement of the production of the goods in question seeking advice regarding the classification that their products were classifiable under sub-heading 7610.10 of the CETA and attracted nil rate of duty under Notification No. 180/88-C.E., dated 13-5-1988. They accordingly acted on tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
