(A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)
Civil Appeal Nos. 8117-8119 of 2003
M/s. Plasopan Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. ________ Appellant
v.
Commnr. of Central Excise, Delhi ___________ Respondent
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 9046-9048 of 2003
Commnr. of Central Excise, Delhi ____________ Appellant
v.
M/s. Plasopan Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. ____________ Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 8117-8119 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 9046-9048 of 2003, decided on March 11, 2015
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
Civil Appeal Nos. 8117-8119 of 2003
The dispute in the present appeal pertains to classification of doors and windows in question which are supplied by the assessee to its customers. As per the appellant, the said doors and windows as supplied are complete in all respects and they are only in unassembled or disassembled form and the assembly takes place at the site of the customer where the doors are to be affixed. On that basis, it is claimed that the goods in question would fall under Chapter sub-heading No. 3925.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. The stand of the Department is that the goods supplied by the assessee would be classified under Chapter sub-heading No. 3925.99. The Tribunal while affirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the version of the Revenue, inter alia, observing that the doors and windows are not supplied in complete form, assembled or disassembled. On the contrary, the Tribunal has observed:
“It has come on record that the goods in question are removed by the Appellants in running length and the doors and windows are fabricated at site by cutting the goods into required sizes”.
It is the submission of Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that the aforesaid observations of the Tribunal are factually incorrect and contrary to the record and an endevour is made to point out that there is nothing which has come on record as has been expressed by the Tribunal.
If that is the contention of the appellant which is factual in nature, the remedy for the appellant is to approach the Tribunal by moving an appropriate application for rectification. In view of the aforesaid, Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, learned counsel for the appellant, seeks permission to withdraw these appeals with liberty to approach the Tribunal with necessary application. The appeals are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. Since these are old appeals of the year 2003, we grant 30 days’ time to the appellant to move such an application. If such an application is moved within the aforesaid time, the same shall be considered by the Tribunal on merits and would not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Civil Appeal Nos. 9046-9048 of 2003
We may record that the the Department has come in appeal against the manner in which benefit in computing the prices is arrived at by the Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the Revenue places reliance on ‘Amrit Agro Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., Ghaziabad’ [2007 (15) SCC 148] to contend that the aforesaid approach of the Tribunal is incorrect. Since, we have permitted the appellant in Civil Appeal Nos. 8117-8119 of 2003 to approach the Tribunal in the manner aforesaid, it would be open to the Department also to raise this issue before the Tribunal and the Tribunal will look into this contention of the Department as well, on merits.
With these observations, the appeals of the Department are disposed of.
———
