Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Kirloskar Brothers Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 2 March, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(133)ELT595(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The appellant was engaged in manufacture of castings of alloy steel and copper to intended to be used (after performing further operations on them) as parts of power driven pumps. The classification claimed by the appellant of these goods under heading 84.13 of the tariff (as parts of power) and the benefit of entry 16 of the Table to notification 64/86, providing concessional assessment to parts of power driven pumps, was approved. Subsequently the department issued notices to the appellant, proposing to deny the notification on the ground that the castings required further finishing before they could be used as parts of pumps. The Assistant Collector confirmed the proposal in the notices and also rejected the claim of the manufacturer that the extended period under proviso to sub-section (1) of section 11A of the Act, which was invoked in the notice, would not be available. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the finding that the goods were not eligible for the benefit of the notification. He, however, remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner to re-determine the applicability of the extended period and to determine the claim made by the manufacturer before him that the benefit of notification 178/86 and 23/88 would be available to the goods. This appeal questions the finding holding that the goods were not entitled to the notification.
2. The relevant entry in the notification exempts parts of power driven pumps primarily designed for water, of the types specified therein, falling under any of the headings of Chapter 82, 83 or 84 of the tariff from duty, subject to specified conditions. The three notices accept that the goods are classifiable under heading 84.09. They proposed to deny the benefit of the exemption solely on the ground that the castings, in the manner in which the appellant cleared it from the factory, could not straightaway be used as parts of a pump. This is argument that the departmental reiterates.
3. If the exemption in the notification were to parts of power driven pumps without reference to the chapters of the tariff, it would be correct to say that it would not be available to the goods; although they have, and hence they cannot be used as parts for the reason that they have to undergo further processing. No one in the market would recognise them, or trade in them, as such parts. The department accepts, however, that the castings have assumed the essential character of parts of pumps. That is why their classification under heading 84.09 is not questioned. The entry in the notification exempts such parts of pumps as are classifiable under chapter 82, 83 or 84. If, for the purpose of these chapters, these goods were parts of pumps they would equally be parts of pumps for the purpose of entry in the table to the notification. That is to say, in construing an exemption granted to goods with reference to their classification in a heading of the tariff, the provisions of that tariff, including the general interpretative notes and section and chapter notes which governed their classification would have to be taken into account. Paragraph 12 of the judgement of the Supreme Court in GSFC Vs. CCE 1997 (91) ELT 3 is relevant in this regard. There was therefore no basis for denying the benefit for the notification.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.