9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacture of Paver Blocks and other articles falling under Heading 6810 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. One of them, namely, M/s. Conwood Pre-Fab Pvt. Ltd. ('M/s. Conwood' for short) classified Paver Blocks under sub-heading 6810 11 90 and cleared the goods at concessional rate of duty in terms of Serial No. 23 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 10/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003 ever since the 8 digit system of classification was introduced under the Central Excise Tariff Act. A concessional rate of 8% of duty was prescribed under serial No. 23 ibid for 'solid or hollow building blocks, including aerated or cellular light weight concrete blocks and slabs'. When the above Notification was superseded by Notification No. 10/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006, they continued to avail the above benefit in terms of serial No. 9 of the Table annexed to the new notification, whereat the effective rate of duty prescribed was 8% for 'solid or hollow building blocks including aerated or cellular light weight concrete blocks and slabs, falling under Chapter '68 (except headings 6804, 6805, 6811, 6812, 6813)' of the CETA Schedule. The department issued a show-cause notice dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation No. 10/2006-C.E. for providing the effective rate (8%) of duty. The tariff entry mentioned against serial No. 23 of the first notification was 68.07 while that mentioned against serial No. 9 of the successor notification was Chapter 68 (except Headings 6804, 6811, 6812, 6813). Obviously the change from the 6 digit system to the 8 digit system of classification under the Central Excise Tariff Act came about during the currency of the first notification. In this scenario, the tariff entry in the 6 digit system, mentioned in notification No. 10/2003-C.E., required change to the 8 digit system, which was achieved by Notification No. 2/2005-C.E., dated 24-2-2005 which came into force on 28-2-2005. Accordingly, it was permissible for those who claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty under serial No. 23 of Notification No. 10/2003-C.E. to substitute for Heading 68.07, the corresponding heading under the 8 digit system, which was brought into effect on 28-2-2005 by the Central Excise Tariff (Amendment) Act, 2005. Broadly it can be said that the amending Notification No. 2/2005-C.E. ibid changed Heading 68.07 (6 digit system) to Heading 6810 (8 digit system) in column No. 2 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not fall within the ambit of 'building'. In this context, JCDR referred to AEON'S Construction Products Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chennai - 2005 (180) E.L.T. 209 (Tri-Chennai). It was submitted that blocks and bricks used for erecting a building were different in technical characteristics from those used for paving the courtyard of the building as evidenced by the fact that separate standards were laid down for the two categories by the Bureau of Indian Standards. In this connection, learned JCDR referred to IS 15658 : 2006 (PRECAST CONCRETE BLOCKS FOR PAVING - SPECIFICATION), which defined 'paver blocks' thus: "solid un-reinforced pre-cast cement concrete paving units used in the surface course of pavements, with minimum horizontal cross-section of 50 mm from any edge in any direction, having aspect ratio not more than four, except for complementary products". He laid much stress on the underlined words and submitted that paver blocks were not intended to be used in the construction/erection of building as vertical structures. According to him, 'paver blocks' were meant only for paving open areas/spaces and hence could not be considered as 'building blocks'. On this basis, it was argued t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise, Bangalore, 2001 (136) E.L.T. 885 (Tri.-Chennai), Indore Wire Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Indore, 2004 (178) E.L.T. 210 (Tri.-Del.) etc. Counsel also opposed the idea of classifying the goods on end-use basis. Neither in the Tariff nor in any of the Notifications was any end-use specified for the goods falling under Chapter 68 of the CETA Schedule and, therefore, there was no warrant to deny the benefit of the Notifications to the assessees on the ground that the paver blocks were used predominantly for paving open area and not for erecting buildings as vertical structures. In this connection, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in Dunlop India Ltd. and Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. v. Union of India Others, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1566 (S.C.). The learned counsel also sought to distinguish the case of Perfect Sealing Systems (supra) by submitting that the relevant entry in the Notification considered in that case contained a reference to use of parts in specified goods. He also claimed support from the Tribunal's decision in CCE v. Crop Care P. Ltd. - 2008 (226) E.L.T. 705 (Tri.-Chennai) = 2008 (86) RLT 254 (CESTAT-Che.), to his argument that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as absolutely irrelevant. In the case of Perfect Sealing Systems Pvt. Ltd., cited by JCDR, certain goods sold by the assessee to another company and predominantly used by the latter in stationary type of industrial vehicles were classified under Item 68 on the basis of the predominant use of the goods. In that case, the contention of the Revenue that as the same goods could interchangeably be put to vehicular type of applications they were appropriately classifiable under Tariff Item 34A was rejected. Obviously, the classification dispute in that case rested on end-use of the goods unlike in the instant case. Therefore, the reliance placed by the JCDR on Perfect Sealing Systems (supra) does not advance the Revenue's case any further. We further observe that the term 'building' used to qualify 'blocks' under SH 6810 11 of the Tariff Schedule has not been defined anywhere in the Central Excise Tariff Act or the Schedule thereto. 8. In the above scenario, one has got to ascertain as to how 'building blocks' are understood in the common parlance. According to the assessees, the common people understand these goods to be blocks used for building activity. On the contrary, it is the ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
