Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Aqua Sub Engineering vs Cce & St, Coimbatore on 13 May, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI E/1269/2004 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 21/2004 (C0mmr.) dated 27.07.2004, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore). M/s. Aqua sub Engineering : Appellant Vs. CCE & ST, Coimbatore : Respondent
Appearance Shri M. Saravanan, Consultant Shri J. Shankararaman, Adv., For the applicant Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) For the respondent CORAM Honble Shri R. PERIASAMI, Technical Member Honble Shri P.K. CHOUDHARY, Judicial Member FINAL ORDER No. 40545 / 2015 Date of Hearing/Decision: 13.05.2015 Per: R. Periasami Appeal arises against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise demanded of Rs. 66,25,339/- being the duty on Thrust Bearing Assembly manufactured and captively consumed during the period June, 2000 to February 2002 in the manufacture of Power Driven Pumps. Appellants are manufacturers of power driven pumps and exempted from excise duty. Thrust bearing assembly manufactured by the appellant emerges as an intermediate product and used in the manufacture of submersible pumps. Appellants claimed Notification No. 6/2000 dated 01.03.2000 under Sl.No. 250, which exempts all goods other than electrical stampings and laminations and bearings and winding wires used in the manufacture of power driven pumps and submersible pumps. The adjudicating authority classified the goods under the heading 8483.90 and held that thrust bearing assembly was nothing but bearing. Bearings are excluded under Notification No. 6/2000 at Sl.no.250. The adjudicating authority denied the exemption benefit and confirmed the duty and imposed equivalent penalty.
2. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the issue stands settled by the Honble Tribunal in the following cases:-
1 Mather & Platt (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-I 2004 (167) ELT 287 (Tri.-Mum.)
2. KSB Pumps Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nasik 2005 (179) ELT 370 (Tri.-Mum.)
3. CCE Vs. KSB Pumps Ltd.
2005 (183) ELT A29 (S.C.)
3. Ld. AR reiterates the findings of the impugned order and relied on the Boards Circular No. 678/69/2002-CX dated 04.12.2002. In view of the Boards Circular, the adjudicating authority has correctly classified the items under 8483.90 and denied the benefit as the thrust bearing assembly is nothing but bearing.
4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that there is no dispute on the fact that the assessees are manufacturer of submersible pumps and the intermediate product thrust bearing assembly is used in the manufacture of final product. They claimed Notification No. 6/2000 at Sl.No. 250 read with condition No. 5 1. Identical issue has been dealt by the Honble Tribunal in the case of KSB Pumps Ltd. (supra) Tribunal discussed the Boards circular dated 4.12.02, which is relied by the department and also considered the Tribunals decision in the case of Mather & Platt (I) Ltd.(supra) and allowed the appeal. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced as under:-
6.?After hearing both sides and considering the material it is found -
(a) The Circular No. 678/69/2002-CX.CBE, dated 4-12-2002 begins by admitting, that doubts were raised regarding the classification and dutiability of thrust bearing assembly used in submersible power driven pumps. It further recorded that the Board referred the matter to IIT, Delhi for their expert advice. The opinion of IIT summarised in the Circular is as They have opined that the thrust bearing assembly is actually a Hydrodynamic Thrust Bearing and that it is neither roller bearing, nor ball bearing (Heading 84.82) nor plain shaft bearing (sub-heading 8483.90). Thus, since the item is a bearing it is not exempt from duty under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002 (Sl. No. 236). This Circular also referred to two CEGAT decisions viz. Calama Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay, 1998 (100) E.L.T. 379 and CC, Calcutta v. Bharat Sales Corp., 1999 (105) E.L.T. 733.
The Revenue preferred appeal against the above Tribunal Order before Honble Supreme Court which was dismissed by its order dated 24.01.05 in C.A. No. D27433/2004 reported in 2005 (183) ELT A29 (S.C.). In the present case, is identical where the adjudicating authority denied exemption benefit under notification No. 6/2000 dated 01.03.2000 for the very same item thrust bearing assembly. The appellants are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000.
5. In view of the Apex Courts decision referred above the issue stands settled and by respectfully following the same the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed and they are not liable to penalty.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(P.K. CHOUDHARY) (R. PERIASAMI)
JUDICIAL MEMBER TECHNICAL MEMBER
BB
1