9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pport and guide the pump rotor system are bearings and covered by Heading No. 84.83. The appellants' contention is that such Guide Bushes made in their factory and used in the pumps are not Bearings and are not covered by Heading No. 84.83. They contended that the parts of power driven pumps viz. Guide Bushes which are loosely called by them as bearings such as packing bearing, intermediate bowl bearing, screw bearing etc. were not bearing but were Guide Bushes. 2.Periodical show cause notices were issued by the department from time to time claiming that Guide Bushes are Bearing and although such Guide Bushes are made and used in power driven pumps in their factory, duty was payable on them in terms of Notfn. No. 46/94-C.E. read with Notfn. No. 95/94-C.E. In the order against show cause notice issued by the department bearing C. No. CE/13/(II)/R-II/KDH/92/204, dated 28-3-95 the ld. Asstt. Commr. held that the Guide Bushes manufactured by the appellants for power driven pumps were actually bearings and the same were not entitled to get the benefit of exemption under Notfn. No. 95/94, dated 25-4-1994. Against the said order passed by the ld. Asstt. Commr., the appellants filed an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has not dealt with various points which has been considered by the ld. Commissioner to decide the classification of the Guide Bushes not to be covered by Heading No. 84.83. The ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in his order dated 30-9-97 also considered the Technical Experts' opinions in deciding this case. He has not dealt with anything leading to change in factual situation or in law. 5.The observation of the ld. Asstt. Commissioner quoted by the ld. Commissioner that the bushes are also bearings when qualifying ISI specification, is not proper and correct inasmuch as HSN has specifically mentioned that bearings falling under Heading 84.83 consist of rings of antifriction metal or other metals (e.g. sintered metal or plastic). The guide bushes made by the appellants are exclusively for use in their pumps according to their specifications, designs and requirements. They are solely and principally for use in power driven pumps. They do not contain any ring of antifriction metal or other materials and they cannot be treated to be bearings. The guide bushes are exclusively used in the manufacture of power driven pumps in their factory. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same as that of bearings, sometimes bushings are called bearings, as pointed out by the appellate tribunal. But when these two articles are known in the market by two different names it is difficult to uphold the contention that they are same and identical, even though they perform the same function. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that bushes and bearings are not same and identical. Hence merely because the guide bushes were termed by the appellants as different types of bearings, they are not bearings inasmuch as they do not satisfy the definition of bearings as covered by the explanatory note to H.S.N. and which has been held to be classifiable under the classification of machines to which such bushes pertain i.e. Heading No. 84.13 and not under Heading 84.83. The order of the ld. Commissioner is not therefore sustainable. 9.Shri N.K. Mishra, ld. JDR for the Revenue submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue inasmuch as the disputed goods in question are nothing but bearings which are excluded from the purview of the exemption notification in queston. 10.We have considered the submissions made from both the sides. The dispute re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s manufactured by the appellant are sold in the market. Moreover, from the two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred by the appellant as mentioned above, it is clear that 'Bushes' are not 'Bearings'. Mere mention of the word 'Bearings' at the end of a particular part does not make them classifiable as 'Bearings' either under S.H. 84.82 or 84.83, which are the only two headings in the CETA under which 'Bearings' are assessable to duty and can be treated as 'goods' for the purpose of denial of exemption Notfn. can change the Tariff Heading of Central Excise Tariff, under which the 'goods' fall and create another sub-heading, as has been done in this case by the Asst. Commr. and duty has been demanded classifying these bearings under Ch. S.H. 84.13, which is not the Tariff Heading for 'Bearings' as per Central Excise Tariff, as already stated elsewhere and the very idea is misconceived. Only those 'Bearings' can be considered as 'Goods' for denial of exemption under Notfn. No. 94/95, which fall under S.H. 84.82 or 84.83, as already stated above and no other Chapter Heading. This case is also similar to the case of Purewal Associates Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 321 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating authority has observed "I have examined the technical opinion as also nomenclature in H.S.N. with reference to I.S.I. specification IS: 4774 -1968 and I am of the opinion that any kind of bearings with a suitable prefix indicating the area of application continues to remain bearings and bushes are also bearings when qualifying I.S.I., specifications are mentioned. There is therefore no denying that assessee manufactures bearings". It appears therefore, had it been already examined by Commr. (Appeals) for identical goods, it would be not necessary for the original authority to re-examine the goods. It is also a fact that the "bearings" as a whole are excluded from the purview of the said notfn. as per the specified list here is. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I find it just and proper to allow the instant applications filed by Revenue and set aside the impugned Orders-in-Original. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. A reading of the above would show that Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the order in a cryptic manner and has commented upon the earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by merely observing that the goods are in fact bearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
