9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellant manufactured. These canopies, it is stated, are made of mild steel. They contain on their inner side a layer of glass wool which has an insulator. It is stated that their function is to insulate the sound of the generator and also to protect generators which are located outdoors from the elements. 3. The appellant cleared these goods between July, 1995 and July, 2000. During the period in question, the appellant had filed declarations in respect of the goods in which they were described as prefabricated buildings - prefabricated power house - made from iron and sheets with insulation - sound proof canopy. The appellant classified the goods in Heading 94.06 of the tariff which includes inter alia prefabricated buildin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsulation. The goods would not qualify to be considered as prefabricated buildings. When the generating set is cleared along with the canopy, the cost of the canopy is includible in the value of the set. Therefore he said that canopy is a part and parcel of the generating set. He justified the invocation of the extended period of limitation on the ground that the appellant was unforthright and convulated , that the assessee had tried through play of words to mislead the department on classifiability of the product despite repeated challenges from the department s side and the persistent incorrigible attitude of the assessee . He therefore confirmed the demand for duty and imposed penalty. Hence this appeal. 5. Heading 85.03 covers parts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it may perhaps be true that these parts of an article that was cleared. That would not however be the case where the canopies are clearly separately cleared. The very fact of separate clearance indicates that the generating sets are complete in themselves and did not lead the canopies function. It is therefore not possible for us to conclude that the goods were classifiable in Heading 85.03. It is not necessary for us, while coming to this conclusion to determine whether the classification claimed by the assessee of prefabricated buildings is appropriate or not. Once the classification proposed in the notice is unacceptable, the demand for duty based on that classification fails. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
