Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Kosan Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 6 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(130)ELT855(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Kosan Industries Pvt. Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of the product described as Ethylene Oxide Road Tanker, which was independently built by the appellants for attachment on chassis of transport vehicle. The tanker built by them was to be secured with bolts and nuts on the chassis and used for carrying ethylene oxide and other fluids. The appellants claimed its classification as containers under Heading No. 8609.00 of the Central Excise Tariff while the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, who adjudicated the matter classified them as bodies for the motor vehicles under sub-heading No. 8707 of the Central Excise Tariff. The view taken by adjudicating authority was confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), who observed that the goods were not containers and after making a reference to the HSN Explanatory Notes, he agreed with the view taken by the adjudicating author-iry.
2. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits. They have submitted that their classification lists were approved and thus, the matter was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Cotspun Ltd. - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.).
3. We have heard Shri Satnam Singh, SDR, and have gone through the facts on record.
4. We find that the show cause notice had been issued on 6-11-1991 alleging that the appellants have wrongly classified their product. It is thus, seen that the classification list had not been approved and the show cause notice was issued alleging that the classification shown under classification list Nos. 7/90-91,26/90-91 and 11/91-92 was not correct. As there is nothing on record that the classification lists had been approved and the duty had been demanded for the period before the approval, we do not consider that the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Cotspun Ltd. was applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. On merits, we find that the goods in question were in the nature of bodies, which were to be fitted on the chassis and they could not be considered as containers as such.
6. Heading No. 86.09 covers containers including containers for the transport of fluids specially designed and equipped for carrying by one or more modes of transport. The goods in question were not equipped for carrying but were to be fixed by bolts and nuts on the chassis. They could not be considered as containers for the purposes of above heading.
7. Heading No. 87.07 covers bodies for the motor vehicles and as admittedly the tankers were fitted on chassis, they meet the specifications of this heading.
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected. Ordered accordingly.