Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. on 16 December, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005(18)ELT401(TRI-BANG)
ORDER T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against O-I-A No. 1127/1999 dated 26-10-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore.
2. The short question involved in this appeal is the correct classification of the Distributor Control Systems manufactured by the appellant. The Commissioner, in his O-I-A, has classified the items under Chapter Heading 9032.80 of CETA, 1985. However, the Revenue is of the view that the goods should come under CH 8537 of the CETA, 1985.
3. Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, learned SDR appeared for the appellants and Shri G. Shiva Dass, learned Advocate appeared for the respondents.
4. The learned Advocate urged that the goods manufactured by the respondents are basically Programmable Process controllers. A reference was made to CBEC Circular No. 49/3/97-CX, dated 9-54997 issued under Section 37B wherein the difference between Programmable Logic Controller and Programmable Process Controller has been clearly brought out. According to the learned Advocate, the Commissioner (Appeals) has thoroughly gone into the working of the systems and come to the conclusion that the same is classifiable under CH 9032.80. He has also taken into account the Board's Circular mentioned above. Moreover, the experts in the field viz. Indian Institute of Science and Department of Electronics have categorically stated that the impugned goods would fall Under CH 9032.80. It was also mentioned that the other manufacturers in India classified similar goods Under CH 9032.80. The Grounds of Appeal filed by the Revenue para 6, 7 & 8 are re-produced below :
"6. From the above, it appears that the goods is having an independent process solution for all parameters and this programme can be tested even without connecting process. The buyer only has to change the parameters according to his need. It is also being used for management, calculation, reports statements and documentation purposes.
7. A manufacturing unit may have many processings to compete their manufacturing activity and those process would have been controlled by pressure, flow, temperature, etc. with predetermined level. Before purchase of this impugned goods, the assessee would have monitored these parameters by manually. The process was controlled by the respective machines like valve, motor, relay, switches, heat device etc. and this was (the pre determined parameter) maintained by manually. After the inspection of this system, it replaces manual monitoring, however, there is no change in controlling the process by the devices like valve, motor relay, switches, heat device etc.
8. These systems are having predetermined parameters, functional set up and are replacing only the manual monitoring and is not a process control equipment but they are actually programmable logic controller equipments and sub assembles thereof which merit classification under Chapter heading 85.37 and 85.38 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as rightly held by the Original Authority in his Orders in Original No. 17/98, dated 15-1-1998 and 50/98, dated 17-2-1998."
5. The learned SDR reiterated the Grounds of Appeal.
6. We have carefully gone through the records of the case and the submissions made by both the parties. The Grounds of Appeal lack clarity. The Board's Circular of 1997 clearly distinguishes Programmable Logic Controller and Programmable Process Controller. The goods manufactured by the respondents are meant for controlling the various processes like pressure, temperature, etc. This is very clear from the opinion of the experts and also the write-up given by the respondents. It is also very clear that the impugned goods would be classifiable only under 9032.80 in the light of the Board's Circular of 1997. The identical products manufactured by the competitors of the respondents are also classified under CH 9032.80. The Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is very detailed and well reasoned. Under these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the Revenue's appeal. Hence, the appeal of the Revenue is rejected.