ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. The Revenue is aggrieved with the OIA No. 15/2005, dated 31-1-2005 and has prayed for stay of the impugned order. The department has proceeded to classify Water Well Drilling Rigs mounted on chassis of motor vehicles under Chapter Sub-heading 8705.00 and demanded differential duty for the period from May 1996 to February 1999. The party, on the other hand, has classified the item under Heading No. 8430.00. The Commissioner (Appeals) has proceeded to classify the item in terms of HSN Explanatory Notes while the Revenue is seeking to apply the ratio of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of CCE, Baroda v. L.M.P. Precision Engineering Co. Ltd. – . The Commissioner (Appeals), after detailed examination of the matter including the Apex Court judgment, has found that the machine is not simply mounted on a truck chassis but the integration is so complete that the chassis cannot be used for any other purpose though it may incorporate the essential automobile features to enable it to move on its own power.
2. The learned JDR submits that the finding is not correct and the Apex Court ruling clearly applies to the facts of the case while the learned Counsel relies on the evidence on record to show that the classification adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct and should be accepted.
3. On a careful consideration, we notice that the entire evidence, for the purpose of correct classification, can be seen only at the final stage. Prima facie, the Commissioner (Appeals) has given very strong reasons for upholding the assessees’ plea for classifying under CH as claimed by them viz. 8430.00. The applicability of the Apex Court judgment can be seen only at the final stage. The alternate prayer for early hearing is accepted by rejecting the stay application. Matter to come up for final hearing on 11th November, 2005.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court)