Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. In the impugned order the tribunal has not considered the findings of fact based on crucial evidences recorded by the Adjudicating Authority. It merely referred to the circular of the CBEC and observed in paragraphs 5,6,7 and 8 as under:

5. We have perused the record and heard both sides at length. Much case law has also been cited by both sides on the issue of manufacture.
6. As already noticed, the appellant was discharging duty at the time of clearance of the PD pump packages after classifying them under 8413. The appellant described the item under sale as "Water Pump-WSK2020" etc. The dealer invoice produced, forming part of the record, describes the item as "Portable water Pumpset Honda-WSK 2020". Thus, the appellant as well as trade were recognizing the item cleared as pump set. The tariff heading already extracted specifically recognized power driven pump as an item. The board's clarification also notes that power driven pump is a separately recognized item. We may read that circular:-
Subject:- CE-Classification and excisability of Power Driven Pump Sets for handling water- Regarding.
I am directed to say that the Confederation of Indian Industry has pointed out about divergence in practice of classification of Power Driven Pump Sets for handling water. A P.D. Pump Set may be a pump having an inbuilt prime move designed and built as a complete unit, called a monoblock pump-set, or a pump and a prime mover being two separable units whether coupled or not put/intended to be put on a common platform. It has been represented that it is classified in some Commissionerates under Chapter Heading 84.13 extending the benefit of Notification No.56/95, dated 16.3.1995 (previous Notification No.46/94 dated 1.3.94) either fully or partially whereas, other Commisisonerates are classifying this product under Chapter Heading 84.79 hererby denying the benefit of exemption.
3. Hence the Board is of the view that Power Driven Pump Sets are classificalbe under Chapter Heading 84.13 and if such Power Driven Pump sets are primarily meant for handling water, the benefit of Notification No.56/95, dated 16.3.95 will be admissible to the whole pump set.
7. The first para of the above circular notes industries stand on the item. It is clear therefrom that the industry recognized PD pump sets as two varieties, one monoblock and the other "having two separable units whether coupled or not put/intended to be put on a common platform". Thus, the industry recognition of power driven pump is as a pump put together or intended to be put together on a common platform. In the appellant's case also, the carton contained a pump and an engine along with the platform on which the engine and pump are to be mounted. The packing contained all the items required from putting together at site, a power driven pump. Thus, the packing was a power driven pump. Central Excise law makes no distinction between a manufactured item cleared as an assembled integral unit or cleared as parts, because whether an item is fully put together or cleared as parts is merely a matter of convenience of packing and transport. In fact, even incomplete products, having the essential characteristics of a manufactured item get treated as the fully manufactured item for the purpose of levy.
8. From the above noted factual situation, we are clear that the packets removed by the appellants were, in fact, power driven pump sets and that by putting together an appropriate pump, an engine and platform the appellant has produced a new item viz. power driven pump and the finding to the contrary is not sustainable. It is well settled that manufacture involves the bringing into existence of a new item with a distinct name, identity, character and use. That a power driven pump has a different and new commercial identity, character and use than the components going into its production is clear from the fact that the pump or engine in itself cannot perform as a power driven pump. We have already noted that PD pumps are recognized as a separate product by the industry manufacturing it and Central Excise tariff. We do not consider it necessary to go into the case law relied upon by both sides, since we have taken a view that in the facts of the case and the industry trade and taxation practice, there could be no dispute that power driven pump is a manufactured item. The Commissioner was, therefore, in error in holding that the clarification of the board was not relevant on the issue of manufacture. This is to presume that classification circulars are an academic exercise in a theoretical framework and has no application in the real world of tax administration."