ORDER
T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)
1. This is Revenue’s Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 34/98, dated 14-9-98 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai.
2. The respondents are the manufacturers of Alleviator and Airlift, excisable items. They claimed classification of the above goods under Chapter heading 8479.00 attracting duty of 15%. However, show-cause notice was issued to reclassify the goods under heading 8431.00 attracting duty at the rate of 25%. The original authority, in his findings, has observed that the product in question, form integrated part of Pollution Control System used in cement factories which basically act as processing machinery besides carrying goods from one machinery to another for disposal of pulverised material. The raw meal is separated into, airlift from the bag filter. Then air is fed into Airlift and the mixture of air and raw meal is moved up or conveyed to the Alleviator. At the Alleviator, Air and Rawmeal are separated. Though Airlift is basically a pneumatic equipment conveying air and Rawmeal, it along with Alleviator is used as processing machinery in the cement plant. In these circumstances, he classified the goods under heading 8479.00 as machinery or parts having individual or specific function not elsewhere specified. The Revenue appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) for classifying the goods under heading 84.31 of the CETA. Heading 8431.00 deals with parts suitable for use solely or principally with the machinery of headings 8425 to 8431. The Commissioner (Appeals) gave a finding that the impugned goods function more like that of filtering or purifying machinery and apparatus for liquid or gases and gave a classification 8421.00. According to the Revenue, airlift and alleviators are basically sub-assemblies of pneumatic conveying system. The function of the impugned goods involves is transportation of pulverised material from one place to another through pipelines along with compressed air. At the end of the terminal alleviator allows the air to pass through retaining solid particles. Hence the items are correctly classified under heading 8479.00 only. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), as an alternative classification, the appellants suggested 84.21. As the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the alternative classification suggested by the respondents. The respondents had not come in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal. In any case, the Revenue’s classification of the impugned goods under heading 84.31 is not appropriate. Hence we reject the Revenue’s appeal. The classification of the imported goods is not under 84.31. In these circumstances we uphold the Order-in-Appeal.
(Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open Court on 13-9-2005)