KEIHIN PANALFA LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Keihin Panalfa Ltd. is whether the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000 -CE. (SI. No. 212A), dated 1 -3 -2000 is available in respect of 'A/C sub -assembly frame' and 'A/C sub -assembly engine' manufactured by them.

(2.) SHRI V. Lakshmikumaran, Learned Advocate, submitted that appellants manufacture various parts of car air -conditioner for supplies to Honda Siel Cars India Ltd.; that the parts manufactured by them are supplied in two sub -assemblies called 'A/C sub -assembly frame' and 'A/C sub -assembly engine'; that M/s. Honda Siel procures other parts of car air -conditioner like heater assembly, heater valve, A/c control panel, blower assembly, duct assembly etc. from other manufacturers and fit the same along with the parts manufactured and supplied by the appellants in their vehicles; that they had classified the parts of A/C under Heading 84.15 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and availed of exemption from payment of Special Excise Duty [S.E.D.] leviable under the Second Schedule in view of Notification No. 6/2000 -C.E.; that the adjudication authority, under the impugned order dated 31 -10 -2001, has disallowed the exemption, confirmed the demand of S.E.D. and imposed penalty on the ground that the goods in question are in the nature of sub -assemblies of car air -conditioner and hence can not be treated as parts of air -conditioning machine for the purpose of Serial No. 212A of the said Notification; that the adjudicating authority has relied upon the definition of Tart' as given in EXIM Policy which is not correct; that it is settled legal position that the definition for a particular expression given in another statute cannot be relied upon for the purpose of Central Excise Tariff and relied upon the decision in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 472 (T). He, further, submitted that in the context of air -conditioner itself, the Appellate Tribunal in Seagull Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai -III - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 186 (T) has held that even a sub -assembly of an air -conditioner would come under the definition of 'Part' in the Central Excise Tariff. The learned Advocate also contended that the impugned goods cannot be classified as complete air -conditioners inasmuch as it does not even have the essential character of air -conditioning machine as stipulated in the Central Excise Tariff as it does not comprise of a motor driven fan; that apart from the two sub -assemblies supplied by them, their customer purchases other important and vital parts like blowers, heaters from other vendors to manufacture car air conditioner.

(3.) HE relied upon the decision in the case of CCE v. Subrose Ltd. -1989 (43) E.L.T. 543 (Tri.) wherein it has been held that goods are not being classified as air -conditioning machines under Heading 84.15 unless clubbed with motor driving fan or blower. Finally learned Advocate submitted that in view of the correspondence exchanged with the Department right from the beginning, no penalty is imposable on them.