PHOEL INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, filed by M/s. Phoel Industries Ltd., the issue involved is whether HDPE pipes and coupler manufactured by them are classifiable under Heading 84.24 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act or under Heading 39.17 of the Tariff.

(2.) SHRI B. L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufactured HDPE pipe and fittings, which are used in the manufacture of sprinkler irrigation system; that both the sprinkler irrigation system and parts thereof are chargeable to nil rate of duty in the Tariff itself; that, initially, they were paying the excise duty on the impugned products under Chapter 39 of the Tariff; that, subsequently, they stopped paying the duty realising that there is no duty leviable on the impugned products; that it has been held by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Ghaziabad v. Rungta Irrigation Ltd, 2004 (165) E.L.T. 574 (T) that HDPE pipes used in the manufacture of sprinkler irrigation system are classifiable under sub -heading 8424.91 of the Central Excise Tariff; that similar views were also taken by the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Ghaziabad v. Rungta Irrigation Ltd., 2004 (167) E.L.T. 476 (T) following the decision of Tribunal in the case of Elgi Ultra Appliances Ltd. v. C.C.E., 2001 (134) E.L.T. 245 (T) = 2000 (89) ECR 593; that the appeal, filed by the revenue against the said decision in the case of Elgi Ultra Appliances Ltd., (supra) has been dismissed by the Supreme Court as reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. A119 (S.C.). He also mentioned that there is no dispute that the HDPE pipes and other fittings manufactured by them conform to ISI specifications for sprinkler irrigation equipment pipes. We also heard Sh. O. P. Arora, learned S.D.R., who reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned Order and emphasised that the appellants themselves have classified the impugned products under Heading 39.17 of the Tariff.