9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferent parts. Since the parts are sent individually they would be classified under respective heading as per Note 2(a) of Section XVI of HSN. The Revenue has further submitted that the stand of the assessee that they have manufactured machinery and cleared in knocked down condition is not sustainable in the light of actual verification of facts of manufacture, as observed by the Assistant Collector, Coimbatore-II Division in his Order-in-Original and what is available for assessment at any given point of time is only parts and at no juncture the entire machinery or equipments is available at the assessee's factory gate for assessment. Revenue has further taken the ground that though the goods are cleared against order for "complete machinery" at no point of time the complete machinery is available with the manufacturer. The Revenue has referred to the case of TISCO v. UOI referred to by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order that crane was assembled as site in complete manner and then transported in knocked down condition. The Revenue would have accepted the stand of the assessee if the entire machinery was manufactured first and after presenting it for assessment cleared in semi- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der, the AC has observed that the appellants received purchase orders for supply of grinding and packing unit which no doubt would be classifiable under 8474.10 but the perusal of the invoices showed that they covered only certain parts of machinery which were supplied over a period of time as above. Thus what was available for assessment at any given point of time was only parts and at no juncture the complete machinery was available at the factory for assessment, and since duty was payable on the manufactured goods at the time of clearances relying on the General Explanatory Note to Section XVI on page 1132 at (V) in the HSN Explanatory Notes of HSN, the AC has concluded that the item covered were correctly classifiable as parts only and not as cement making machinery itself. He therefore confirmed the demand. 4. Challenging the above findings, the appellants have stated that M/s. Cochin Cements Limited contracted them for supply of cement making machinery as a turn key project weighing about 300 MT and the supply was spread over a period of 12 to 16 months in 60 trucks as part consignments and the entire plant after assembly was commissioned on 10-9-95. They further felt that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mited was for supply of the complete cement making machinery. This is a verifiable fact. The Board had occasion to examine the dutiability/classification of effluent treatment plant (ETP) which are assembled at site (Heading 84.90) - vide Board's letter 17/89, dated 24-4-89 reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. T23. It has been stated therein that duty would be chargeable on parts and components leaving the factory according to the condition in which they are removed, i.e. if together they can be regarded as ETPs, in un-assembled/dis-assembled condition or having the essential character of ETPs, they would be covered by sub-heading No. 8419.00 as ETPs. Otherwise, they would be charged to duty as parts and components under the appropriate heading. It has been further stated therein that at site if the assembly of parts and components results in ETP coming into existence, as a distinct marketable product which is capable of being brought to the market for being bought and sold prior to its attachment to earth, duty would be leviable on such ETPs under sub-heading No. 8419.00. However, where parts or components are fixed, installed or erected in such a way that the final article comes into exi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of tariff classification. In my view therefore, the AC's order is not sustainable in law." 4. He has also invited our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in the matter of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. UOI reported in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 297 (Pat.) wherein it has been held that articles cleared in knocked down condition are dutiable as complete item of machinery and not as parts. It was also held that crane fabricated and assembled at another unit of assessee against his work order but transported to assessee's plant in knocked down condition, duty is payable under item 68 of the CET. It was also held that crane qualifying as an identifiable commercial item being capable of coming to the market to be bought and sold, duty is leviable under item 68 of the CET read with charging Section 3 of the CET, 1985. He has also invited our attention to CEGAT, Calcutta decision in the case of Vinar Systems Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta-II reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 372 (Tribunal) wherein it has been held that parts of conveyor system cleared in SKD or CKD condition are prima facie complete conveyor systems covered under Heading 8428.00 of the CET and not as parts of conveyor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
