2016(09)LCX0063

IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI [COURT NO. I]

Justice Dr. Satish Chandra, President and Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (T)

BHILLAI ENGG. CORPN. LTD.

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur

Final Order Nos. A/53378-53380/2016-EX(DB), dated 6-9-2016 in Appeal Nos. E/2179, 2184 & 2362/2007-EX(DB)

Advocated By -

Ms. Rinky Arora, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri G.R. Singh, DR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : B. Ravichandran, Member (T)]. -

These three appeals are on the same issue of classification certain items manufactured by the appellants and hence are taken up together for disposal.


2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various engineering goods liable to excise duty under Chapters 84 and 85 of Central Excise Tariff. These are manufactured against specific orders placed by the buyers. The appellants claimed classification of scrapper chain system, main girder & frame, guard for gearing, boiler table for bridge scrapper, gangway platform and ladders for bridge scrapper, part of chain conveyor, rake car for bridge, travel carriage for bridge scrapper and harrow for reclaimer under CTH 8474.00 subject to 10% duty. The Revenue entertained a view that these items are classifiable under C II I 8431/8483. Similarly, the classification for high frequency interlocking system claimed under Heading 8503 was sought to be changed to CTH 8537.

3. The view of the Revenue was upheld by Original Authority and affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by such findings, these appeals are filed.


4. We have heard both the sides and perused appeal records. The correct classification of impugned goods are in dispute. Both the lower authorities recorded that the classification was decided based on the description of the products in question. The appellant did not submit any material, catalogue, literature and description to clarify and support their claim for classification under CTH 8474. Their contention all along has been that it is for Department to establish a particular classification and they are guided by the advice of the buyer to classify these products under a particular CTH. We find even in the appeals before Tribunal also the appellants are maintaining the same stand. The Bench directed them to produce product literature, catalogue, etc., so that the dispute can be resolved with proper appreciation of facts. Despite of specific direction no submissions have been made by the appellants even in extended period. While we appreciate that if the Department intends to change the classification supporting facts are to be asserted, here in this case it is the appellant, who first claims a particular classification, which apparently carries much lower rates of duty. They have consistently failed to furnish even basic product literature to support their claim. When they are before us on second appeal, still they stood on the assertion of revenue's burden to establish a particular classification . We note that the appellant's attitude is rather strange and did not help in finding the facts relevant to the dispute.

5. In any case, we have proceeded to examine the case in hand with all the materials on record and also on information in public domain. The dispute ot classification is between parts/components of crushing machinery as claimed by appellant or parts of bridge scrapper as asserted by revenue. A plain perusal of the description of various impugned goods itself shows they are all identified as components of bridge scrapper.
Heading 84.74 deals with the following items :-

"84.74 8474.00 Machinery for sorting, screening, separating, washing, crushing, grinding, mixing or kneading earth, stone, ores or ether mineral substances, in solid (including powder or paste) form; machinery for agglomerating, shaping or moulding solid mineral fuels, ceramic paste, unhardened cements, plastering materials or other mineral products in powder or paste form; machines for forming foundry moulds of sand."

6. Heading 8431 deals with parts suitable for use solely or principally with the machinery or Heading Nos. 84.25 to 84.30. Heading 84.29 specifically includes "scrappers" and Heading 84.28 specifically includes "conveyors". We have examined the description of the products, which is as per the appellant's own documents. The descriptions arc reproduced in Para 1.2 of the original order dated 30-11-2016. The description specifically mentions like rollers table for bridge scrapper, gangway platform and ladders for bridge scrapper, rake car for bridge, travel carriage for bridge scrapper, parts of bridge scrapper. When the products are described in such explicit terms, we are not able to appreciate the claim of the appellant that these impugned goods should not be categorized as parts of such machinery. The appellant's claim based on their buyer's advice is not supported by any material evidence. Based on the description of the products, we have no hesitation to hold that the lower authorities are correct in classifying the same under the respective headings. We find no merit in the present appeals and accordingly, dismiss the same.
(Order pronounced on 6-9-2016)

Equivalent 2016 (342) ELT 0289 (Tri. - Del.)