Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Eta Engineering Private Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai on 6 October, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/723/03
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.1/2003 dt. 16.1.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 the Members wish to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
ETA Engineering Private Ltd.
Appellant/s
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai
Respondent/s
Appearance :
Shri Muthu Venkatraman, Advocate Ms.Uma Maheswari, Advocate Shri V.V.Hariharan, JCDR For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s CORAM:
Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of hearing : 6.10.2010 Date of decision : 6.10.2010 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in dispute in the present appeal namely classification of ducts manufactured out of G.I. sheets stands settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the assessees own case reported in 2006 (197) ELT 372 which has been upheld by the apex court by rejection of the Revenues appeal against the Tribunals order, as seen from 2006 (200) A138 (SC). It has been held that goods in question, which are identical to the goods in the present case, fall for classification under Heading 73.08 as part and parcel of the air-conditioning system as claimed by the assessees. The result of classification under Heading 73.08 is that goods would be exempt from payment of duty. Although the Commissioner in the present impugned order has held that classification will be under Heading 73.04, in view of the apex courts decision cited supra, we do not uphold the classification under Heading 73.04 but under Heading 73.08.
2. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT
gs
1
3