Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Auto Aircon (India) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 15 January, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO.1
APPEAL NO.E/2054/06-Mum
(Arising out of Order-in- Original No.P III/BKS/CEX/26/2005-06 dtd. 16.2.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune.III )
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr S.S.Kang, Vice President
Honble Mr.P.K.Jain, Member(Technical)
============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
============================================================= Auto Aircon (India) Ltd.
:
Appellants VS Commissioner of Central Excise (Adj.)Pune.III Respondent Appearance Shri Shiraz Rustomjee, advocate with Shri Vipul Bilve, advocate for Appellants Shri B.S.Meena, Addl. Commissioner(A.R.) for Respondent CORAM:
Mr. S. S. Kang, Vice President Mr.P.K.Jain, Member(Technical) Date of hearing: 15/01/2014 Date of decision 15/01/2014 ORDER NO.
Per : S.S.Kang The appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, whereby the demand of Rs. 2,18,01,837/- is confirmed alongwith interest and penalty of equivalent amount is imposed under Sec.11AC of the Central Excise Act. The demand is confirmed by classifying the goods manufactured by the appellants as Car Air Conditioners under Chapter Sub-heading No.8415.00 of the Central Excise Act.
2. The contention of the appellants is that the appellants are manufacturing some parts of the Car Air Conditioners and also procuring compressors from the market and the same were being supplied to Tata Motors on payment of appropriate duty as parts of Air Conditioners. The contention of the appellants is that the issue involved in this appeal is already settled by the Tribunal in the case of Behr India Ltd. vs CCE, Pune.III 2007(207) E.L.T. 73 (Tri-Mumbai) and in the case of Voltas Ltd. CCE, Mumbai.1 2005(179) E.L.T. 578(Tri-Mumbai). The Tribunal in the above decisions held that the manufacturer is not manufacturing Car Air Conditioners and set aside the demands which were confirmed on the same ground as in the present case.
3. Revenue reiterated the finding of the lower authority and relied upon Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules to submit that the appellants are clearing almost all parts of the Car Air Conditioners and the same to be treated as Car Air Conditioners.
4. The appellants are manufacturing the following parts :-
Kit for HVAC Unit on cab Assembly HVAC Unit complete Assembly condenser with RD switch Assembly Back Plate Assembly Fascia Control *knobs supplied individually Set of Hoses (3 nos. supplied individually) Assembly AC compressor - Assembly AC compressor HVAC Kit for HVAC unit on engine - Compressor bracket, Bolts: and Fast Idling Control Device (FICD)(also known as assembly Idle up diesel) (Only for Diesel vehicles) Parts and accessories for Parts and accessories for automotive AC Automotive ACs consisting inter alia of HVAC-SUMO HVAC control unit , Switches, Vacuum Harness, Hoses, Condenser Assembly Tube Assemblies, Fasteners.
Gas Compressor and parts - Compressor, Compressor bracket, Pack fasteners, Assembly FICD actuator And bracket.
5. The appellants are also procuring from the market the compressors and the same were cleared alongwith other parts to Tata Motors. The issue involved in the present appeal is, whether the goods cleared by the appellants are to be treated as Car Air Conditioners or parts of the Car Air Conditioners. The appellants are paying duty as parts of the Car Air Conditioners. This issue is now settled by the above decisions of the Tribunal relied upon by the appellants. In view of the above decisions, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated in court) P.K.Jain Member(Technical) S. S. Kang Vice President pv 3