SIDWAL REFRIGERATION LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi dated 12 -12 -2001. The issue raised is whether Electric Control Panels (ECP) manufactured by the assessee and supplied to the railways have to be treated along with Roof Mounted Package Unit (RMPU) as one item falling under Chapter Heading 8415 as air - conditioning machines. The appellant has also raised a contention on the ground of limitation.

(2.) The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of air conditioners and parts thereof falling under Heading 8415 and Electric Control Panels falling under Heading 8537 of CETA 1985. The appellants manufacture and supply RMP Unit of air -conditioners to Indian Railways on the basis of the specification given by Railway Designs and Standardisation Organisation (RDSO). ECPs are also manufactured on the basis of the specifications provided by RDSO. Appellants were paying duty on RMPU under Heading 8415 as air -conditioning machine and on ECP under Heading 8537. Documents evidencing payment of duty, purchase order of Railways etc. as also monthly RT 12 returns were being filed with the Central Excise authority from time to time. On several occasions audits were also conducted by the Internal Audit Parties and Audit Parties of AG Assessments were also made on the basis of the above mentioned classification. While so show cause notice dated 22 -3 -2000 was issued by the Directorate General of Anti -Evasion (Adjudication), New Delhi demanding a differential duty of Rs. 75,34,573/ -alleging that the appellants had cleared air -conditioning systems without including the value of ECPs supplied along with the RMPU. It was alleged that ECP is a part of air -conditioning system and is not required to be separately classified. Its value should form part of the air -conditioning system. Extended period of limitation was sought to be invoked by issuing show cause notice in respect of the period from April 1995 to December 1999.

(3.) The appellants contended that the value of ECP is not liable to be added to that of RMPU and that the demand is barred by limitation. The Commissioner rejected the contention raised by the assessee and confirmed the demand. Aggrieved by the above, the present appeal is filed by the assessee.