LexM/S. CONTINENTAL PROFILES LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MIS. CONTINENT AL PROFILES LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI MAY 21, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985-Schedule, Heading 85.01and85.43- 'A<;tuators'-Classification of-Held: Actuators are classifiable under sub Heading 85.01. With regard to classification of 'Electric Valve Actuator', it was the appellant's case that they were classifiable under sub Heading 85.43 relying A B c on *Guindy Machine Pvt. Ltd's case and ** ~udco India Ltd.'s case and respondent-revenue case was that they were classifiable under sub Heading 85.01 of schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 relying on D ***Seimen's case, and as such there were conflicting in decisions in the matter. Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants. Hence the present appeals. Respondent-Revenue contended that Guindy's case was distinguished , by the Tribunal in Seimens' case by holding that the 'Electromechanical E Actuator' was considered as a part and accessory suitable for use solely or principally with the machine of heading Nos. 84.56 to 84.65 and as such reference of the matter to the Larger Bench was not called for and Seimens' case was applicable; and that 'Eledric Valve Actuator' falls under heading 85.01. 'F Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. So far as other non-electric goods falling in Heading 84.85 are concerned in Heading 85.01 it is to be noted that the same relates to electric motors and generators excluding generating sets. 'Electric Motors are machines for transforming electrical energy into mechanical power'. 'G This group includes rotary motors and linear motors. Para 3 of the group reads 'valve actuato~, electrical, consisting of an electric motor with reducing gear and drive shaft and in some cases, with various devices (electric starter, 747 H 748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R. A transformer, hand wheel, etc.) to operate the valve plug". ·,,. (Paras 7 and 81 (750-F, G; 751-AI 1.2. In order to be covered by heading 84.53 (a) the same must relate to electric machines and apparatus with individual functions (b) must not be specified or included elsewhere in the Chapter. Thus, the view of the CEGAT B does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. (Paras 9 and IOI (751-8, q *CC£v. Guindy Machines Pvt. Ltd, (1999) 113 ELT 619; **Audco India Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, (1999) 106 ELT 524 and ***CC£, Bombay C v. Seimens (/)Ltd, (2000) 119 ELT 167, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4904-4905 of 2002. From the Final Order No. 553-554/2001-8 dated 13.12.2001 of the Customs, D Excise and Gold(Control) Appellate Tribunal, New.Delhi in Appeal No. E/1682; 1916/01-B. Suruchii Aggarwal and Sarlonki for the Appellant. .I. ,, In·_, T.M. Mohd. Youseff, Sr. Adv., T.V. Ratnam and B: Krishna Prasad for E the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Challenge in these appeals is to th_e order passed by Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi F (in short the 'CEGAT'). By a common order CEGA T dismissed the two appeals filed by the appellant. The issue involved in the appeals was whether "Actuators" were classifiable under sub~heading 85.43 as claimed by the appellant or under heading 85.0 I of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short the 'Tariff Act') as contended by the revenue. The demand made was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The stand of G the appellant before the CEGA T was that in CC£ v. Guindy Machines Pvt. Ltd., (1999) 113 ELT-610 and in the case of Audco India ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs ( 1999) I 06 EL T 524 it has held that "Actuators" are not classifiable _ under heading 85.01. Commissioner (Appeal) relied on the decision in CC£,-•:. Bombay v. Seimens (/)ltd, (2000) 119 ELT- 167 where it was held that the H "Actuators" were classifiable under Heading 85.0 I. thus there were conflicting ·~ .j;. CONTINENT AL PROFILES LTD. 1•. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI [PASA Y AT, J.] 749 ~ decisions in the matter. A , _,../" 2. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that Guindy's case (supra) was distinguished by the Tribunal in Seimens' case (supra) by observing that the product involved in the said case was "Electromechanical Actuator" which was. considered as a part and accessory suitable for use solely or B principally
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.