Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Cce vs Rungta Irrigation Ltd. on 20 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(167)ELT476(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
P.G. Chako (J), Member
1. This appeal of the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) classifying the subject goods (HDPE) pipes) under Sub-heading 8424.91 of the CETA Schedule as claimed in the revised classification declaration dated 15.1.2001 filed by the assessee. The appellant wants the goods to be classified under SH 3917.00. The ground of appeal state that it was admitted by the respondents in their earlier classification declaration effective from 1.3.2000 the HDPE pipes manufactured by them were classifiable under Sub-heading 3917.00. It is further stated that the 'manufacturing process' submitted by the party along with the said declaration indicated that the bare HDPE Pipes manufactured by them were an intermediate product generated at the first stage of the said process and could not be used as part of Sprinkler Irrigation System (SIS, for short). It is claimed that only the coupled pipe manufactured at the second stage of the process could be used as part of SIS. Another ground raised in this appeal is that the plastic pipes manufactured by the respondents were products of general use, which stood excluded from the purview of Section XVI of the CETA Schedule and, therefore, the goods could not be classified under Chapter 84 falling within the said Section XVI. The appellant has also relied on paragraph 2 of the Board's Circular No. 380/13/98-CX. Dated 16.3.98. It is stated, in this connection, that para 4 of the Circular, relied on by the assessee, was not applicable to bare pipes of plastic. It is also contended that the more specific description of goods under Sub-heading 3917.00 should be preferred to the general description given under Sub-heading 8424.91. The appellant has also relied on the Tribunal's decision in the cases of Supreme Industries Vs. Collector [1999 (106) ELT 207] and Jyoti Plastic Vs. Collector [1993 (64) ELT 291].
2. Heard both sides. Ld. DR has reiterated the above grounds of the appeal. He has also relied on the Tribunal's decision in Rungta Irrigation Ltd. Vs. CCE [2001 (131) ELT 484]. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the classification of HDPE pipes manufactured and cleared by them during the period of dispute (April to November 2002) should be treated as settled by Final Order NO. 96/2004/NB(B) dated 18.1.2004 passed by this Bench in Appeal No. E/23064/2003 [CCE Vs. M/s. Rungta Irrigation Ltd.]. Counsel has referred to some of the decisions of the Tribunal relied on by the party in the said appeal No. E/3064/2003 and has submitted that the Supreme Court has affirmed those decisions holding that components of irrigation systems are appropriately classifiable under Heading NO. 84.24.
3. We have carefully examined the submission. We find that, in the earlier case of the present respondents, for the period July 2001 to March 2002, the Tribunal has accepted classification of HDPE pipes under Sub-heading 8424.91. All the grounds which have been raised in the present appeal were raised by the appellant-Revenue in that case (Appeals No. E/3064/2003) also. Rejecting all those grounds, we held vide Final Order No. 96/2004/NB(B) dated 18.1.2004 as under : -
"Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has found that the HDPE pipes manufactured by the respondents were of IS specification for sprinkler irrigation system, that the pipes were only supplied as part of such system to State Governments and were never sold otherwise, and that the assessee had established with the aid of invoices and IS specifications that the pipes were made for sprinkler irrigation system only. These findings of facts have not been challenged in this appeal. Ld. SDR has, however, submitted that the respondents were manufacturing HDPE pipes in the sizes 63, 75, 90 and 110 mm which were within the standard range (50 to 600 mm) of sizes sold in the market for general purposes and therefore the subject goods should be classified under Heading 39.17. We are unable to accept this ground for two reasons. Firstly, this ground has not been raised in the memorandum of appeal. Secondly, the learned DR's submission does not take into account the pressure-specifications for pipes used in a sprinkler irrigation system. The various sized of HDPE pipes manufactured by the respondents were, undisputedly, on the pressure 2 kg., 2.5 kg. And 3.2 kg. Which were specific for sprinkler irrigation systems as per IS specifications, whereas the standard pressures sold in market for general purposes were 4kg., 6kg, and 10 kg. Vide para 3 (i) of the impugned order. For the reasons stated by us, the goods in question can only be classified as parts of sprinkler irrigation system under Heading 84.24. In the case of Jyoti Plastic Cited by the Dr, the plastic tubes/pipes were found to be articles of general use and classified under Heading 39.17. In supreme Industries (supra), the dispute was whether certain pipe fittings manufactured by the assessee were classifiable under Heading 39.17 or under Heading 39.25. Neither case involved classification of irrigation equipment-specific plastic pipes or tubes. Both the cases cited by the DR are thus distinguishable from the instant case. On the other hand, in the cases cited by counsel, it was consistently held that plastic pipes manufactured for being used as parts of irrigation equipments/systems, and actually supplied as such parts, were only to be classified under Heading 84.24. The lower appellate authority has rightly followed one of these decisions. Its reliance on para (4) of the Board's circular referred to by the DR is also quite appropriate. In the result, we uphold the classification of the goods under SH 8424.91 and reject the department's appeal."
4. The assessee had, in appeal No. E/3064/2003, relied on the Tribunal's decision in the cases of Elgi Ultra Appliances Ltd. Vs. CCE [2000 (89) ECR 593], Hallmark Industries Vs. CCE [2000 (122) ELT 540] and CCE Vs. EPC Irrigation [2002 (50) RLT 733 = 2002 (142) ELT 630]. The department's appeals against the decision in all these cases were dismissed by the apex court as pointed out by learned counsel vide 2000 (120) ELT A-119, 2001 (129) ELT A-197 and 2002 (146) ELT A-88.
5. In the Tribunal's order reported in 2001 (131) ELT 484 cited by Id. SDR it was held that HDPE pipes manufactured by the assessee (present respondents) were not classifiable as part of SIS under Heading 84.24. We are unable to follow that order as a precedent inasmuch as atleast three orders of the Tribunal holding similar goods to be classifiable under the said Heading stand affirmed by the apex court.
6. Following our earlier order vis. Final Order No. 96/2004, we uphold classification of the subject goods under Sub-heading 8424.91 and reject the present appeal.
(DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order correctly but the access and circulation is subject to the condition that Taxindiaonline is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.)