RUNGTA IRRIGATION LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals arising out of different Order -in -Appeals involving the issue of classification of HDPE pipes, whether under sub -Heading 8424.91 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by M/s. Rungta Irrigation Ltd. or under sub -Heading 39.17 as claimed by the Revenue.

(2.) Shri K.J. Singh, learned Advocate submitted that the issue involved in these appeals has been decided in favour of assessee by the Tribunal vide Final' Order No. A/194/2004 -NB(C) dated 20.2.2004 following the earlier Final Order No. 96/2004 -NB(B) dated 18.1.2004; that the Appellate Tribunal has upheld the classification of the impugned goods under sub -Heading 8424.91. The second Appeal has been filed by the Revenue as the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Order -in -Original under which the products manufactured by M/s. Rungta Irrigation Ltd. was classified under Heading No. 39.17.

(3.) The Tribunal has held in the earlier case of M/s. Rungta Irrigation Ltd. Vide Final Order No. 96/2004 -NB(B) dated 18.1.2004 as under: Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has found that the HOPE pipes manufactured by the respondents were of IS specification for sprinkler irrigation system, that the pipes were only supplied as part of such system to State Governments and were never sold otherwise, and that the assessee has established with the aid of invoices and IS specifications that the pipes were made for sprinkler irrigation system only. These findings of facts have not been challenged in this Appeal. Learned Senior Departmental Representative has, however, submitted that the respondents were manufacturing HOPE pipes in the sizes 63, 75, 90 and 110 mm which were within the standard range (50 to 600 mm) of sizes sold in the market for general purposes and therefore the subject goods should be classified under Heading 39.17. We are unable to accept this ground for two reasons. Firstly, this ground has not been raised in the memorandum of Appeal. Secondly, the learned Departmental Representative's submission does not take into account the pressure -specifications for pipes used in a sprinkler irrigation system. The various sizes of HDPE pipes manufactured by the respondents were, undisputedly, of the pressures 2 kg., 2.5 kg. and 3.2 kg. which were specific for sprinkler irrigation systems as per IS specifications, whereas the standard pressures sold in market for general purposes were 4 kg., 6 kg. and 10 kg. vide Para 3(i) of the impugned order. For the reason stated by us, the goods in question can only be classified as parts of sprinkler irrigation system under Heading 84.24. In the case of Jyoti Plastic cited by the Departmental Representative, the plastic tubes/pipes were found to be articles of general use and classified under Heading 39.17. In Supreme Industries (supra), the dispute was whether certain pipe fittings manufactured by the assessee were classifiable under Heading 39.17 or under Heading 39.25. Neither case involved classification of irrigation equipment -specific -plastic pipes or tubes. Both the cases cited by the Departmental Representative are thus distinguishable from the instant case. On the other hand, in the case cited by Counsel, it was consistently held that plastic pipes manufactured for being used as actually supplied as such parts, were only to be classified under Heading 84.24. The lower appellate Authority has rightly followed one of these decisions. Its reliance on Para (4) of the Board's Circular referred to by the Departmental Representative is also quite appropriate. In the result, we uphold the classification of the goods under SH 8424.91 and reject the department's Appeal."