ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune. In the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise held that the parts of conveyors and elevators are rightly classifiable under Sub-heading 8431 and shafts, bearings, bearing housings, couplings, gear boxes, sprockets are classifiable under Heading 8438 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Collector of Central Excise in the impugned order also confirmed the demand of duty short levied amounting to Rs. 8,36,293.72 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of handling/ transportation machinery of sugar and cement plant. The appellants filed a classification list with effect from 1-3-1986 and classified parts of conveyors and elevators under Sub-heading 8438.00 or 8474.00 as parts of sugar mill machinery and cement mill machinery respectively. The appellant also claimed classification of shaft, bearing, bearing housing, couplings, sprockets under Sub-heading 8438.00 or 8434.00 as parts of sugar mill machinery and cement mill machinery.
3. The show cause notices dated 9/16-12-1987 issued to the appellants alleging that the parts of conveyors and elevators of sugar mill machinery or cement mill machinery should not be classified under proper Sub-heading 8431.00 and 8483.00 respectively and a demand of Rs. 8,36,293.72 for the period from 1-3-1986 to 31-10-1987 was also made under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Rules. Penalty amount also was proposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. After adjudicating the impugned order was passed.
4. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar mill machinery and cement mill machinery. He submits that all parts in question manufactured by the appellants are used as parts of sugar mill machinery or cement mill machinery. He submits that parts of coveyors and elevators and also shafts, bearings, bearing housing etc. has been specifically designed and tailored made to suit the requirement of each customers and could not be interchangeable and cannot be used in any other plant. In view of this he submits that the parts in question are parts of sugar mill machinery and cement mill machinery and they are classifiable as parts of the said machinery.
5. He further submits that the appellant filed the classification list with effect from 1-3-1986 and the show cause notice was issued on 9/16-12-1987. He submits that therefore the demand is time barred. He submits that in the classification list appellant specifically mention all the goods in question as parts of sugar, cement plant machinery and this fact was within the knowledge of the respondents. Therefore he submits that at no point of time, the appellant had suppressed or mis-declared the goods. He therefore prays that the appeals be allowed.
6. Heard Shri D.S. Negi, SDR.
7. In this case the appellants filed classification list with effect from 1-3-1986. In respect of cement and sugar mill machinery and parts thereof the appellants classified the parts of conveyors and [elevators] under Headings 8438.00 and 8474.00 respectively. The appellant also classified the shafts, bearing, and bearing housing coupling as parts of cement/sugar mill machinery. The contention of the appellant is that these parts are suitable for sugar/cement machinery and hence they are rightly classifiable as parts of the said machinery.
8. The Collector of Central Excise in the impugned order relied upon the certificate dated 2-2-1998 given by one of the buyers of the cement mill machinery to the effect that the machinery and components supplied by the appellants as per the contract are PG conveyors, standard casings for budget elevators and PG conveyors and assembly of [PG] conveyors and similar certificate was given by the supplier of auger making machinery. In the certificate M/s. Niphed Sahakari Shakkar Karkhanna Ltd. certifying that the appellants supplied, as per contract, comprise of sugarcane conveyors, sugar cane carrier, shaft for return bagasse conveyors carrier bottom bearing, top half top bearing etc.
9. From these certificates, it is clear that the appellant has manufactured the conveyors and other lifting, handling/loading/unloading machinery. Subheading 8428.00 of the Central Excise Tariff includes other lifting, handling/ loading/unloading machinery (for example lifting etc. and sub-heading 8431.00 includes parts suitable for solely or principally that the Heading Nos. 84.25 to 84.30.
10. The Section Note 2A of Section XVI provides that parts which are goods including any of the heading of Chapter 84 or Chapter 85 other than Heading No. 84.85 or 85.48 or any of the cases to be classified in their respective headings. In the present case from the evidence on record, it is proved that appellant has manufactured conveyor and other lifting, handling/loading/ unloading machinery. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order in respect of the classification of the goods in dispute.
11. The Heading No. 84.33 of the Central Excise Tariff includes transmission shafts including conveyor shafts and elevator shafts and crank shafts, bearing housings and plant shafts, bearing and gears and gearings, ball screws, gear boxes other speed changers.
12. The Heading 84.33 of the Central Excise Tariff which includes shafts, bearing, bearing housing, couplings sprockets and in view of Section Note 2 of Section XVI, these items manufactured by the appellant are rightly classifiable under this heading.
13. The Collector of Central Excise in the impugned order held that the appellant has misdeclared the goods in classification list. We find that the appellant had filed a detailed classification list with effect from 1-3-1986 and in the classification list they specifically mentioned the fact that they are engaged in the manufacture of sugar making machinery and in the cement making machinery consisting of components as per Annexure ‘D’. In this annexure they specifically mention items in dispute. When the appellant made a detailed classification list and mention all the goods in dispute in the classification list, it cannot be said that the appellant has misdeclared the goods or suppressed the material to evade the payment of duty. The Collector of Central Excise in the impugned order held that the declaration made to the Assistant Collector was not complete but it was only half truth. Therefore in these circumstances we hold that appellant has not suppressed the facts to evade the duty. Therefore the provisions of Section HA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for extended period are not applicable in the present case. Hence the demand beyond six months from the issue of show cause notice is time barred. Therefore, the penalty imposed in the impugned order is set aside.
14. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.