Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Appearance Shri M. Saravanan, Consultant Shri J. Shankararaman, Adv., For the applicant Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) For the respondent CORAM Honble Shri R. PERIASAMI, Technical Member Honble Shri P.K. CHOUDHARY, Judicial Member FINAL ORDER No. 40545 / 2015 Date of Hearing/Decision: 13.05.2015 Per: R. Periasami Appeal arises against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise demanded of Rs. 66,25,339/- being the duty on Thrust Bearing Assembly manufactured and captively consumed during the period June, 2000 to February 2002 in the manufacture of Power Driven Pumps. Appellants are manufacturers of power driven pumps and exempted from excise duty. Thrust bearing assembly manufactured by the appellant emerges as an intermediate product and used in the manufacture of submersible pumps. Appellants claimed Notification No. 6/2000 dated 01.03.2000 under Sl.No. 250, which exempts all goods other than electrical stampings and laminations and bearings and winding wires used in the manufacture of power driven pumps and submersible pumps. The adjudicating authority classified the goods under the heading 8483.90 and held that thrust bearing assembly was nothing but bearing. Bearings are excluded under Notification No. 6/2000 at Sl.no.250. The adjudicating authority denied the exemption benefit and confirmed the duty and imposed equivalent penalty.

6.?After hearing both sides and considering the material it is found -
(a) The Circular No. 678/69/2002-CX.CBE, dated 4-12-2002 begins by admitting, that doubts were raised regarding the classification and dutiability of thrust bearing assembly used in submersible power driven pumps. It further recorded that the Board referred the matter to IIT, Delhi for their expert advice. The opinion of IIT summarised in the Circular is as They have opined that the thrust bearing assembly is actually a Hydrodynamic Thrust Bearing and that it is neither roller bearing, nor ball bearing (Heading 84.82) nor plain shaft bearing (sub-heading 8483.90). Thus, since the item is a bearing it is not exempt from duty under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002 (Sl. No. 236). This Circular also referred to two CEGAT decisions viz. Calama Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay, 1998 (100) E.L.T. 379 and CC, Calcutta v. Bharat Sales Corp., 1999 (105) E.L.T. 733.