9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 35E(2) based upon which the appeal was filed by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals), relied upon a report of the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau alleging that the manufacturers of chillers were clearing goods under Chapter 84.18 as heat pumps, which report was a fresh piece of evidence, for the purpose of enabling the respondents to make their submissions in the matter. According to the appellants who are represented by their Counsel, Shri R. Krishnan, the review order raises an entirely new point which was not raised in the show cause notice, and therefore, the review order is bad in law and the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have held accordingly instead of remanding the matter for fresh decision on merits. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e classified under 84.15 and attract duty @ 30%. Instead the manufacturers of such chiller units are misclassifying them under 84.18 and paying duty @18%. 2. Further, as per C.E.I.B. reports, the chiller packages units, which are used for heating, ventilation and airconditioning application are primarily airconditioning machine parts falling under chapter heading 84.15 which read as airconditioning machines, comprising a motor driven fan and elements for changing the temperature and humidity, including those machines in which the humidity cannot be separately regulated are being wrongly classified as head pumps of Tariff No. 84.18 "which is read as Refrigerator, freezer and other refrigerating or freezing equipment, electric or other heat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... early specified that "A machine which is used for more than one purpose is for the purposes of classification, to be treated as if its principal purpose were its sole purpose." Therefore the chiller package unit has to be categorised under air-conditioning machines of Tariff heading 84.15 and not 84.18". A comparison of the grounds raised in the notice with the grounds of appeal in the review order would show that they are different from each other and that the review order is entirely based upon the report of the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau. We, therefore, agree with the appellants that the review order seeks to make out a new case against them. This is not legally permissible under Section 35E(2), the Commissioner of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
