Buckau Wolf India Ltd. vs Collector of Central Excise, Bombay>1997(05)LCX0011

1997(05)LCX0011

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

S/Shri Lajja Ram, Member (T) and S.S. Kang, Member (J)

BUCKAU WOLF INDIA LTD.

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY

Final Order Nos. E/1043-44/97-B, dated 23-5-1997 in Appeal Nos. E/2299 and 3632/88-B1

REPRESENTED BY : None, for the Appellants.

Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. - These are two appeals filed by M/s. Buckau Wolf India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `BWI’) being aggrieved with the two separate orders-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. In Appeal No. E/2299/88-B, the impugned order-in-appeal is dated 17-11-1987 and the matter relates to the classification of the parts/components of machinery which were classifiable under Heading No. 84.28 and Heading No. 84.29 of the Central Excise Tariff based on the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the `Tariff’). The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pune, had classified the said parts/components under Heading No. 84.31 of the Tariff. After discussing the matter in detail with reference to the relevant tariff entries and the rules of the interpretation and Section Notes, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, had confirmed the view taken by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise.

2. In Appeal No. E/3632/88-B1, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had observed that the appeal had been filed against a letter addressed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise to M/s. BWI and in that letter the Asstt. Collector had mentioned that the same issue had already been decided by him under the Order-in-Original F.No. RC/63/86-87, dated 21-8-1987 and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had rejected the appeal on the ground that no pleadings at all had been made by the appellants.

3. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits.

4. On behalf of the respondents/Revenue, Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR, referred to Tariff Entry No. 84.31 which covered `Parts suitable for use solely or principally with the machinery of Heading Nos. 84.25 to 84.30’. He submitted that there is no dispute that the machinery for which the parts in question were meant were classifiable under Heading No. 83.28 and Heading No. 84.29 of the Tariff. As the parts of these machines classifiable under Heading No. 84.28 and Heading No. 84.29 were specifically covered by Heading No. 84.31, there was no question of their classification under Heading Nos. 84.28 and 84.29.

5. We have carefully considered the matter. There is no dispute that the parts/components which are the subject matter of Appeal No. E/2299/88-B1 were parts/components of the machinery classifiable under Heading Nos. 84.28 and 84.29. The Tariff description under Heading No. 84.31 provides that the parts which are suitable for use solely or principally with the machinery which were, among others, classifiable under Heading No. 84.28 and Heading No. 84.29 will be classifiable therein i.e. under Heading No. 84.31.

6. The appellants had referred to Section Note 4 under Section XVI of the Tariff which is extracted below :

“Where a machine (including a combination of machines) consists of individual components (whether separate or interconnected by piping, by transmission devices, by electric cables or by other devices) intended to contribute together to a clearly defined function covered by one of the headings in Chapter 84 or Chapter 85, then the whole falls to be classified in the heading appropriate to that function.”

7. We consider that this Section Note is applicable only when a machine is for classification and that machine consisted of various, individual components. The machine consisting of individual components could be a machine in the knocked down condition. This Note is not applicable when classification of the parts is under consideration. For classification of the parts, the relevant Section Note is Section 2 which provides that inter alia parts which are goods included in any of the headings of Chapter 84 or Chapter 85 (other than Heading Nos. 84.85 and 85.48) are in all cases to be classified in their respective headings.

8. Heading No. 84.31 is specific to the parts suitable for use solely or principally with the machinery of Heading Nos. 84.25 to 84.30, the classification of the parts of the machinery which were classifiable under Heading Nos. 84.28 and 84.29 could not be considered in the headings which related to the machinery as such. As the parts have been specifically described, there is no question of going to sub-note (b) of Note 2.

9. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had referred that Heading No. 84.28 and Heading No. 84.29 only referred to the specific machines and that their parts were not to be classified therein. Keeping in view the description under the respective Headings 84.28, 84.29 and 84.31 read with Section Note 2 of Section XVI, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.

10. In Appeal No. E/3632/88-B1, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had passed the following order :

“In this appeal against Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pune-II Division’s Order RC/63/86-87, dated 4-6-1987 from M/s. Buckau Wolf, appellants have declined personal hearing and requested for deciding the case on records. As I go through the appeal petition I find that the impugned order does not contain facts necessary for deciding the case. It is only a letter addressed to the appellant saying that the refund claim is rejected as the same issue was already decided under the Order-in-Original F.No. RC/63/86-87, dated 21-8-1986. Appellants have failed to submit a copy of this order along with their appeal petition, and have also declined personal hearing. In the circumstances I have no option but to reject the appeal.”

11. In the appeal memo, the appellants have stated that the facts and the dispute in the present appeal were the same as contained in the appellants’ appeal regarding correct classification of excise duty applicable to components and parts of material handling equipment. In other words, the matter in this appeal is the same as was the subject matter in order-in-appeal dated 17-11-1987 against which the appeal has been listed as A.No. E/2299/88-B1 and which had been discussed by us above.

12. As we have discussed above, the parts of the machines classifiable under Heading No. 84.28 and Heading No. 84.29 were correctly classifiable under Heading No. 84.31, as held by the lower authorities.

13. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in both these appeals and the same are rejected.

_______

Equivalent 1997 (95) ELT 118 (Tribunal)