Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bharat Forge Ltd.

Collector of Central Excise vs Bharat Forge Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Aug 03, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/18800

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/18800
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Aug 03, 2000
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Bharat Forge Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2000)(121)ELT812TriDel

Excerpt

.....of central excise (appeals) agreed with the view of the assessee and classified the same under heading no.84.55.2. the respondents have prayed for decision on merits, the have heard shri s.n. singh, sdr, and have gone through the facts on record. it is seen that the base frame was for the gear box and motor manufactured by the respondents and both the gear box and the motor were for the tube rolling mill i.e. piercing mill. we consider that the gear box and motor were complete without this base frame which was used as a support for these items to run the tube rolling mill. its frame was grouted to give support to the gear box and the motor, so that there were no vibration while running the mill.3. we have gone through the competing tariff entries and we consider that the plea of the revenue that the base frame was classifiable under heading no. 85.03 is not correct as this heading covers parts suitable for use solely or principally with the machines of heading no. 85.01 or 85.02. heading 85.01 covers electric motors and generators (excluding generating sets); and heading no. 85.02 covered electric generating sets and rotary converters. as the electric motors and generators were complete without the base frame in question, in our view their classification was not appropriate.4. the collector of central excise (appeals) had classified the base frame under heading no. 84.55 which covers metal rolling mills and rolls thereof. the metal rolling mill has a wide coverage and in the facts and circumstances of this case, we consider that between the different competing tariff entries, the classification of the goods under heading no. 84.55 would be more appropriate.5. in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any material on record to disturb the findings of fact of the collector of central excise (appeals). we do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the revenue and the same is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal tiled by the Revenue, the respondents are M/s. Bharat Forge Ltd. and the issue for our consideration is the classification of the 'base frame for piercing mill gear box motor'. The respondents had classified the same under Heading No. 84.55 of the Tariff. A show cause notice was issued on 5-7-1993 alleging that the correct classification was under Heading No. 84.83 of the CET. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise who adjudicated the matter classified the same under Heading No.85.03. On appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) agreed with the view of the assessee and classified the same under Heading No.84.55.

2. The respondents have prayed for decision on merits, the have heard Shri S.N. Singh, SDR, and have gone through the facts on record. It is seen that the base frame was for the gear box and motor manufactured by the respondents and both the gear box and the motor were for the tube rolling mill i.e. piercing mill. We consider that the gear box and motor were complete without this base frame which was used as a support for these items to run the tube rolling mill. Its frame was grouted to give support to the gear box and the motor, so that there were no vibration while running the mill.

3. We have gone through the competing tariff entries and we consider that the plea of the Revenue that the base frame was classifiable under Heading No. 85.03 is not correct as this heading covers parts suitable for use solely or principally with the machines of Heading No. 85.01 or 85.02. Heading 85.01 covers electric motors and generators (excluding generating sets); and Heading No. 85.02 covered electric generating sets and rotary converters. As the electric motors and generators were complete without the base frame in question, in our view their classification was not appropriate.

4. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had classified the base frame under Heading No. 84.55 which covers metal rolling mills and rolls thereof. The metal rolling mill has a wide coverage and in the facts and circumstances of this case, we consider that between the different competing Tariff entries, the classification of the goods under Heading No. 84.55 would be more appropriate.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any material on record to disturb the findings of fact of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). We do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of Central Excise vs Bharat Forge Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax