Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Citizen Technofab P. Ltd.

Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. vs Citizen Technofab P. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 18, 2005
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/40025

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Customs

Case Summary

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

Customs

Key legal issue
Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.

Respondent

Citizen Technofab P. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2005)(188)ELT209Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....other parts and accessories covered under any other heading in chapters 84, 85 and 90 would be excluded if these are parts and accessories of air-conditioning machinery and appliances.our view is in conformity with the earlier decision of the tribunal in the case of cce, madras v. r.g. bronze mfg. co. - 1997 (96) e.l.t. 115 (tribunal).5. shri r.s. dinkar, ld. advocate for the respondents submits that the impugned goods are for industrial use and are not parts of air-conditioning machines. he also submits four catalogues for the impugned goods. we find that these catalogues and related submissions have not been considered by the lower appellate authority as he has not dealt with the question as to whether the impugned goods are parts or accessories of air-conditioning machineries or not but has allowed the exemption merely on reclassification of the goods.6. in view of our findings as above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals by way of remand with the direction that the lower appellate authority shall specifically determine whether the impugned goods are parts or accessories of air-conditioning machinery or not. he shall also take into consideration the catalogues produced by the respondents and allow them a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh order.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides and perused the case records, cited case laws and written submissions. In these three appeals filed by Revenue, the dispute relates to availability of small scale exemption to the impugned goods which are ventilation fans and filters. These goods were reclassified by the original authority as parts of air-conditioners under Heading 84.15 denying small scale exemption, confirming a duty demand of Rs. 4,92,903.50 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

2. On appeal, the lower appellate authority has changed the classification of ventilation fans to Heading 84.14 and filter to Heading 84.21 as claimed by the respondents. The lower appellate authority has also allowed the small scale exemption on the ground that these headings are also specified under the relevant exemption Notification No. 1/93-C.E. Hence these appeals by Revenue.

3. The applicant Commissioner does not seem to be aggrieved by the reclassification done by the lower appellate authority. However, it is the contention of the department that the lower appellate authority has lost sight of the fact that "refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances and machinery and parts and accessories thereof falling under Chapters 84, 85 or 90" are specifically excluded from the purview of the Notification No. 1/93.

4. We are of the view that such specific exclusion in the small scale exemption required the lower appellate authority to specifically consider whether or not the impugned goods are parts and accessories of air-conditioning machinery and appliances or not. Mere reclassification under Headings 84.14 and 84.21 does not automatically entitle these goods to small scale exemption. Not only parts covered under Heading 84.15 are excluded but also other parts and accessories covered under any other heading in Chapters 84, 85 and 90 would be excluded if these are parts and accessories of air-conditioning machinery and appliances.

Our view is in conformity with the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Madras v. R.G. Bronze Mfg. Co. - 1997 (96) E.L.T. 115 (Tribunal).

5. Shri R.S. Dinkar, ld. Advocate for the respondents submits that the impugned goods are for industrial use and are not parts of air-conditioning machines. He also submits four catalogues for the impugned goods. We find that these catalogues and related submissions have not been considered by the lower appellate authority as he has not dealt with the question as to whether the impugned goods are parts or accessories of air-conditioning machineries or not but has allowed the exemption merely on reclassification of the goods.

6. In view of our findings as above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals by way of remand with the direction that the lower appellate authority shall specifically determine whether the impugned goods are parts or accessories of air-conditioning machinery or not. He shall also take into consideration the catalogues produced by the respondents and allow them a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh order.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial