2008(01)LCX0230

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI [COURT NO. I]

Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President and Shri A.K. Srivastava, Member (T)

Ajanta Printers

Versus

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Final Order No. A/87/2008-WZB/C-I/(CSTB), dated 22-1-2008 in Appeal No. C/412/99

Cases Quoted -

Collector v. Jyoti Ceramic Industries Pvt. Ltd. - 1999(03)LCX0232 Eq 1999 (107) ELT 0651 (Tribunal) - Referred.... [Para 2]

Advocated By -

Shri Shilpa Balani, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri C. Lama, DR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. -

The appellants herein imported Ceramic Anilox Rolls claiming that these were part and parcel of flexographic press and requested assessment at machine rate under Chapter 84 and claimed refund of Rs. 55,265/- on the ground that duty had been paid on these rolls under CET Heading 6914.90. The Asstt. Commissioner held that the goods were optional accessories and were, therefore covered by the Accessories (Conditions) Rules, 1963, which provides that only if accessories and parts are compulsorily supplied along with the machine and no separate charge is made for such supply and price is included in the main machine, they shall be chargeable at same rate of duty as that machine. He further held that since rolls were made of ceramic, as per Chapter Note 1(b) of Chapter 84 they were not to be classified under Chapter 84. His order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal.


2. We have heard both sides. There is no dispute that the goods in question were made of ceramic. Ceramic parts, even if part of a machine or an appliance, will not fall under Chapter 84 in view of Note 1(b) of Chapter 84 as held in the case of CCE v. Jyoti Ceramic Industries P. Ltd. [1999 (107) ELT 651]. In the light of the above decision, we hold that the assessment of the goods in question under Chapter 69 which covers ceramic articles is correct and the duty was paid correctly under this heading and therefore, there was no payment of excess duty so as to entitle the appellants to claim any refund. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Equivalent 2008 (225) ELT 0442 (Tri. - Mumbai)

Equivalent 2008 (088) RLT 0418 (CESTAT-Mum.)