LAWS(CE)-2000-7-218

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. SUNFLAME INDUSTRIES

Decided On July 12, 2000
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE Appellant
V/S
Sunflame Industries Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s. Sunflame Industries, Faridabad, manufacture "electric coil stove" which is liable to central excise duty under chapter sub -heading 8516.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. Under notification No. 160/86 -CE dated 1 -3 -1986 as amended from time to time, the Central Government fixed different rates of duty on various electrical and electronics machinery and equipment. A duty of 20% ad valorem was fixed on 'do -4 mestic electrical appliances, the following'. Entry (x) of electric appliances listed thereunder read as follows: -

(2.) THE issue involved in the present appeal is whether 'electric coil stoves' manufactured by M/s. Sunflame Industries should be treated as 'hot plates' or whether they remained exempt under the category of 'other domestic electrical appliances'.

(3.) THE issue had come to the Tribunal on an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi against order -in -appeal No. 386 -CE/DLH/93, dated 18 -11 -1993 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi wherein the Commissioner held, after reversing the decision of the Assistant Collector that electric coil stove was eligible for assessment at nil rate of duty as 'other domestic electrical appliances'. The Division Bench of the Tribunal which heard the appeal has referred the case to this Larger Bench as they were of the opinion that electric coil stove is nothing but a hot plate and was, therefore, required to pay duty at 20% as applicable to hot plates; but, this opinion was in conflict with an earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Supreme Electrical Industries, Bontex Electricals 1997 (23) E.L.T. 667 (CEGAT) wherein the Tribunal held that electric coil stove was required to be assessed as 'other domestic electrical appliances' and not as 'hot plates'. The ground taken by the Commissioner in the appeal is as under: -