ORDER
Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the matter relates to the classification of a product described as “Energy Saving Combination, refrigerated closed loop fluid cooler and hot air paper dryer.” The assessee had claimed classification of this new product under sub-heading 8419.00 which covered machinery, plant or laboratory equipment for the treatment of materials by a process involving a change of temperature, etc. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise held the classification, as submitted by the assessee and dropped the demand of Rs. 18,900/-and also held that the benefit of small-scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 was available to the goods in question. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals’) who also referred to the earlier decision of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) order dated 10-12-1990 which is at page 9 of the paper book. In that earlier decision the appellate authority had observed that the lower authorities have agreed that the product was to be used for drying up the printed paper.
2. In cross-objections the assessee had submitted that the earlier order dated 10-12-1990 has been accepted by the department as no appeal has been filed against that order.
3. The respondents M/s. Pan Asia Corporation have prayed for decision on merits.
4. We have heard Shri Satnam Singh and have gone through the facts on record. We find that the classification of the same goods had been settled by the earlier order dated 10-12-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. Thereafter, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise had approved the classification under sub-heading No. 8419.00 and the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was also extended. In the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had referred to this earlier order and had also decided the matter on merits observing that the machine performed two functions – by chilling the water by means of refrigeration and secondly by heating the roll of printed paper for which the heat obtained from the chilling of water was utilised. He further added that there was nothing on record to show that the basic function of the product was refrigeration. He had also noted that the earlier order of the Collector (Appeals) and of the Assistant Collector which were in favour of the assessee had not been challenged.
5. From the facts on record, we find that the matter has already been settled by the earlier decisions. The period of dispute is February, 1990 and the amount of duty involved is Rs. 18,900/-.
6. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any material to disturb the findings of the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). We do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected.
7. Cross-objections are also disposed of in the above terms.