Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.U.P. Pumps Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Kanpur on 26 December, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing/decision:26.12.2014
Appeal No.E/3493/2005-EX(DB)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.299/CE/APPL/KNP/05 dated 22.08.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Kanpur].
M/s.U.P. Pumps Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Kanpur Respondent
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) 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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Appearance: Rep. by Shri R. Krishnan, Advocate for the appellant.
Rep. by Shri M.S. Negi, DR for the respondent.
Coram: Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial).
Final Order No.54990/2014 /Dated:26.12.2014 Per Rakesh Kumar The appellant are manufacturers of Treadle Pumps, which are feet operated pumps, which can lift water from the depth upto 7 Mtrs and are normally used for minor irrigation purposes for lifting water from beneath or surface water ponds, canals or rivers. The dispute is about classification of this product. According to the department, the Treadle pumps are classifiable under sub-heading no.8413.80 of the Tariff as other pumps for liquids while according to the appellants, these pumps are meant for minor irrigation purposes and are correctly classifiable as mechanical appliances of a kind used in agricultural or horticulture under heading no.8424 of the Tariff. Vide order-in-original dated 16.1.2004 passed by the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner, the Treadle Pumps were classified under heading 8413.80. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against this decision of the Asstt. Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 22.08.2005 upheld the classification of the treadle pump under sub-heading no.8413.80. Against this order of the Commissioner, this appeal has been filed.
2. Heard both the sides.
3. Shri R. Krishnan, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant pleaded that there is no dispute that these treadle pumps are meant for use in the irrigation purposes, that these pumps had been exported under bond through a merchant exporter to Africa, that as per technical literature in respect of treadle pumps, which is placed on record, these pumps are meant for minor irrigation purposes for lifting water from depths upto 7 MTs and except for this, there is no other use of these pumps, that since heading no.8424.10 covers mechanical appliances for agricultural or horticulture, and since these good are meant for agricultural or horticultural use, the same are more specifically under 8412, that the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others 1985 (21) ELT 72 (Bombay) has held that while the end use of the goods is irrelevant for classification, it would be relevant when the Tariff Entry itself is end use based, that the ratio of this judgement of the Honble Bombay High Court is squarely applicable to the fats of this case, that the Tribunal in a series of judgements in the case of Rungta Irrigation Ltd. reported in 2004 (174) ELT 250 (T-Delhi), CCE Vs. Rungta Irrigation Ltd. reported in 2004 (167) ELT 476 (T-Delhi), CCE, Rungta Irrigation Ltd. reported in 2004 (165) ELT 574 (T-Delhi), M/s. Phoel Industries Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I reported in 2005 (183) ELT 192 (T-Delhi) and Indian Plastics and Laminates Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ghaziabad reported in 2004 (169) ELT 51 (Tribunal-Delhi) has held that HDPE Quick change coupler, tail piece, open end cap, bend tee and branch coupler/sprinkler line coupler are classifiable under sub-heading no.8424.91 as part of the Sprinkler Irrigation System, that since the pumps, in question, are specifically meant for agricultural or horticultural purposes, the same have to be treated as mechanical appliances for agricultural or horticultural use and would be more specifically covered by 8424.10 rather than the classification as other pumps for liquids under heading no.8413.80. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order classifying the goods as other pumps for liquids is not correct.
4. M.S. Negi, ld. Departmental Representative defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) pleaded that Heading 8413 covers all pumps for liquids, whether or not fitted with a measuring device; liquid elevators, that sub-heading no.8413.80 covers pumps other than power driven pumps, primarily designed for handling water or hand pumps, that since the goods in question are feet operated pumps meant for lifting water, the same are specifically covered by heading no.8413.80, that in terms of the General Rules for interpretation of First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff, the Heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred over the general heading, that in this case, the heading no.8413.80 pertaining to pumps, other power driven pumps and hand pumps, which provides the most specific description, as the other competing heading 8424.10 is a General Heading, which covers the mechanical appliances for agricultural or horticultural use, that moreover Heading 8424 covers, mechanical appliances ( whether or not hand operated) for projecting, dispersing or spraying liquids or powders; Fire extinguishers, whether or not charged; spray guns and similar appliances steam or sand blasting machines and similar jet projecting machines, while the goods, in question, are pumps meant for lifting the water, that the Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Standard Tin Works - 1998 (99) ELT 113 (Tribunal), has held that sprays including hand operated ones are different from the hand pumps and distinct from hand pumps and that in view of the above submissions, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records.
6. The goods, in question, are Treadle Pumps, which are feet operated pumps used for lifting water from a depth upto 7 Mrs. The point of dispute is as to whether the goods, in question , are the pumps, covered by the Heading no.8413.80 as claimed by the department or the goods, in question, are the mechanical appliances for projecting, dispersing, spraying liquids or powders for agricultural or horticulture covered by Heading No.8424.10 of the Tariff as claimed by the appellant.
7. Heading No.8413 of the Tariff, as the same stood during the period of dispute, is as under:-
84.13 Pumps for liquids, whether or not fitted with a measuring device; liquid elevators Power driven pumps primarily designed for handling water 8413.11 Centrifugal pumps (horizontal or vertical) 8413.12 Deep tube-well turbine pumps 8413.13 Submersible pumps 8413.14 Axial flow and mixed flow vertical pumps 8413.19 Other 8413.20 Hand pump 8413.80 Other Parts:
8413.91 Of hand pumps for handling water 8413.99 other. 7.1 From a perusal of the above entries, it is seen that the Heading No.8413 covered all the pumps for liquids, whether or not fitted with a measuring device; liquid elevators and sub-heading no.8413.80 covers the pumps for liquids, other than the power driven pumps primarily designed for handling water or hand pumps.
8. Heading No.84.24 cover, Mechanical appliances (whether or not hand operated) for projecting, dispersing or spraying liquids or powders; Fire extinguishers, whether or not charged; spray guns and similar appliances; Steam or sand blasting machines and similar jet projecting machines. Heading No.8424.10 cover, mechanical appliances of a kind used in agriculture or horticulture.
9. The goods, in question, are the pumps primarily designed for lifting water to the surface from the depth upto 7 Mts. and are feet operated pumps. Though the same are primarily meant for agricultural uses, the fact remains that the same are feet operated pumps for handling water. The same cannot be said to be the mechanical appliances for projecting, dispersing or spraying liquids or powders and thus, the same cannot be treated as the irrigation system. Therefore, in our view, the goods are specifically covered by the Heading no.8413.80. In any case, as per the General Rules for interpretation of the Tariff, the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to Heading providing more General description. In view of this, the goods in question are correctly classifiable under Heading 8413.80. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order-in-original. The appeal is dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) (S.K. Mohanty) Member (Judicial) Ckp.
1