9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Yogesh Patki, Advocate, for Appellant Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Superintendent (A.R.), for Respondent Per: Ramesh Nair: The issue involved in the present case is that the various parts and accessories manufactured and cleared by the appellants are of air-conditioner and refrigeration machinery and the same are classifiable as parts accessories of air conditioner and refrigerator machinery and whether the said parts and accessories are entitled for the SSI exemption Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 01.03.1986. 2. Shri Yogesh Patki, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that on the similar issue the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Melting Wire Industries - 2008 (231) ELT 22 (S.C.) (vi) Samrat International (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise - 1992 (58) ELT 561 (S.C.) (vii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Vs. Allied Air-Conditioning Corn. (Regd.) - 2006 (202) ELT 209 (S.C.) (viii) Mysore Metal Industries Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay -1988 (36) ELT 369 (S.C.) (ix) Motiram Tolaram Vs. Union of India - 1999 (112) ELT 749 (S.C.) (x) Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal Vs. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. - 2012 (278) ELT 581 (S.C.) 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that in respect of the same parts classification had been approved which was challenged by the department before the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice that times such as grills etc. will not be classifiable as part of air conditioning machinery. As has been held by the Gujarat High Court in NavGujarat Fabricators, 1977 ELT (J67) and Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Star Chemicals (Bombay) Ltd. Vs. Union of India Others, 1980 ELT 133 (Bom.), a trade notice of this kind is binding on the department. Therefore, both on merits as well as on the basis of the trade notice, the respondent company has a sound case and the department s claim in any case fail for want of substantiation. In these circumstances I am unable to interfere with the order of the Assistant Collector appealed against. From the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appellant s case the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for contesting the correctness of the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) is legally not sustainable. The impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) is perfectly valid and needs no interference in this appeal. The Collector (Appeals) has endorsed the order of the Assistant Collector correctly as the same was passed on the basis of Board s Circular and Trade Notice referred to above, while approving the classification list regarding the classification of the products in question, filed by the respondents. 6. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and the .. ordered to be dismissed. From the above order, the classification of the parts and accessories involved in the present case was decided in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
