Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Cce vs Grasim Industries Ltd. on 2 April, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(118)ECC489, 2007ECR489(TRI.-CHENNAI), 2008(221)ELT49(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. The dispute in this appeal filed by the department relates to classification of the goods manufactured and cleared by the respondents to their buyer against a purchase order of the latter. The goods, though covered under a single purchase order, were removed in a few consignments under separate invoices. Duty was paid on the basis of the value shown in each invoice. All such invoices classified the goods under SH 8439.00 as machinery for making pulp of fibrous cellulosic material. The payment of duty under all the invoices was as applicable to this classification. The department, in the relevant SCN, classified the goods covered under various invoices as parts of machinery under various Headings of Chapter 84 and, accordingly, raised a differential duty demand. The original authority, pursuant to a remand order (Order-in-Appeal No. 1216/99 dt. 21.11.99) of the Commissioner (Appeals) classified the goods cleared under various invoices by the respondents, under various Headings/Sub-headings in Chapter 84 of the CETA Schedule as parts of the respective machineries and, accordingly, demanded differential duty. Aggrieved by this decision, the party preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter allowed the appeal with consequential relief. Hence the present appeal of the Revenue.
2. It is submitted by learned SDR that there is no evidence on record to show that the parts supplied by the respondents under different invoices would, on assembly, form a complete pulp making machinery. It is also submitted that, for claiming classification of all such parts together as a single machinery, the assessee should have followed the procedure laid down by the Board in Circular No. 252/86/96-CX. dt. 16.10.96. It is also submitted that all the parts removed by the party under various invoices could not be assembled into a single machinery classifiable under SH 8439.00 unless they were co-assembled with bought-out items. It is submitted by ld. SDR that the buyer could make the complete machinery in their premises not exclusively out of the parts supplied by the assessee but by making use of bought-out parts also.
3. After considering the submissions, we are of the view that it is upto the department to establish this case before the original authority by adducing appropriate evidence within the scope of the SCN. It appears from the records that the Revenue has a case that the assessee had supplied the goods as "replacement parts". Apparently, the assessee is contesting this plea. This question can also be settled at the original level. Whether the Board's circular cited by ld. SDR is applicable to the facts of this case is yet another question which can be considered by the original authority, if it is found to be within the scope of the SCN. Since the department has not furnished a copy of the SCN, we are not immediately in a position to ascertain its scope and ambit.
4. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed by way of remand, directing the original authority to pass fresh order of adjudication after giving both sides a reasonable opportunity of being heard and having regard to the observations made in this order.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)