Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Collector Of Central Excise, Cochin vs M/S. Steel & Industrial Forgings Ltd. on 11 January, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(129)ELT269(TRI-BANG)
ORDER
Shri G.A. Brahma Deva
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department. The issue relates to the interpretation of Notfn.No.239/86. The Notfn.No.239/86 exempts motor vehicles, parts falling under Chapter 73. The respondent who are the manufacturers of steel forgings filed classification lists dt.1.12.87 claiming benefit of exemption, contained in Notfn.No.239/86-CE dt.3.4.86 were supplied to the vehicle factory. These forgings were classified under Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector has denied the exemption on the ground that these are roughly shaped forgings which cannot be used directly in the motor vehicle parts. On appeal filed by the assesee, the commissioner (Appeals) has observed in para 8 & 9 of the impugned order which is as under:-
Para 8 "Notfn.No.239/86 exempts motor vehicle parts falling under Chapter 73. As already indicated these rough forgings have reached such a stage that with the final machining they would become motor vehicle parts. The legislature was apparently aware of the further processes which the forgings had to be subjected uto before they are ready for fitment. Since these forgings have completed a large percentage of manufacture, the legislature apparently has taken a broader view and included them as motor vehicle parts even though they are falling under Chapter 73 of the CET. Thus the intention of the legislature is to extend the benefit of Notfn.ti these goods. Since the Department has already classified these goods under Heading 73.26 and in view of the fact that the Notification clearly includes the goods falling under Chapter 73 for the benefit of the Notification. I am satisfied that the goods have to be given the benefit of this Notification."
Para 9:
"The lower authority has held that the goods are not used directly as motor vehicle parts. In fact none of the items falling under Chapter 73 can be used directly as motor vehicle parts they would not fall under Chapter 73 at all. Therefore, the contention of the appellants that the legislature specifically intended to grant the benefit of the Notification to these goods, even if they are falling under Chapter 73 is correct. Even though, they require further processing, since they have reached such a stage of manufacture they cannot be used for any other purposes, the legislature has apparently decided to treat them as motor vehicle parts and extend the benefit of Notification to them".
2. Smt.Radha Arun, appearing for the revenue submitted that the observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 9 of the OIA is relevant which is as under:-
Para 9 :
"The lower authority has held that the goods are not used directly as motor vehicle parts. In fact none of the items falling under Chapter 73 can be used directly as motor vehicle parts. If they are motor vehicle parts they would not fall under Chapter 73 at all. Therefore, the contention of the appellants that the legislature specifically intended to grant the benefit of the Notfn. to these goods, even if they are falling under Chapter 73 is correct. Even though, they require further processing, since they have reached such a stage of manufacture they cannot be used for any other purposes, the legislature has apparently decided to treat them as motor vehicle parts and extend the benefit of Notification to them".
3. Shri.Nambiar appearing for the respondents submitted that as can be seen from the exemption Notification for motor vehicle parts, though the items are not parts but part of the part is also a part which was held in a case against CCE Vs.Mahendra Engg. Works reported in 1993 (67) ELT 134 (T) as well as in the case of Tata Engg & Locomotive Co. Ltd., Vs.Collector of Central Excise, Pune 1999 (106) ELT 222 (T).
4. We have carefully considered the matter. Though the ground has been taken by the revenue that some of the items cannot be used directly in relation to motor vehicle parts the same has not been substantiated. On going through the relevant Notification and the impugned order we do not find any (SIC)infirmity in the impugned order.
5. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that these are parts which are classified under Chapter 73 and accordingly benefit in terms of Notfn.No.239/86 cannot be denied. Since the issue has been properly analysed by the Commissioner(Appeals) we are of the view that no interference is called for in respect of the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly appeal is dismissed.
(Pronounced and dictated in the Open Court)