- (1.) THESE appeals are against an order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short "CEGAT") dated 3/4/1997. The question for consideration is regarding classification of: (i) receivers-7309, (ii) surge drum-7309, (iii) flash vessel-7309, (iv) oil receiver-7309, (v) drain pot-7309, and (vi) base frames, which are used by the respondents in manufacture of water-chilling plants. The appellants contend that these are all parts of the water-chilling plant and, therefore, they are covered by Tariff Item 84.19 which reads as follows: JUDGEMENT_764_10_2004Html1.htm
(2.) THE respondents sought to classify them under Tariff Item 73.09 which reads as follows: JUDGEMENT_764_10_2004Html2.htm The Assistant Collector noted that it was an admitted position that these were all parts of the water-chilling plant manufactured by the respondents and that they had no independent use on their own. The Assistant Collector thus held that they were classifiable under Tariff Item 84.19. The Collector (Appeals) relied upon a circular issued by the Board of Central Excise dated 25/9/1986 and held that receivers, surge drums and flash vessels were classifiable under Tariff Item 73.11 and the drain pot under Tariff Item 73.10. It was held that the oil separator would be classifiable under Tariff Item 84.79 and the base frame under Sub-Heading Item 7308.90.
(3.) THE appeal filed by the Department has been disposed of by the Tribunal by holding that the Department has not proved that these parts were specifically designed for manufacture of the water-chilling plant in question. THE Tribunal has noted the technical details supplied by the respondents and the letter of the respondents dated 30/11/1993, giving details of how these parts are used in the chilling plant. THE Tribunal has still strangely held that this by itself is not sufficient to show that they are specifically designed for the purpose of assembling the chilling plant. We are unable to understand this reasoning. Once it is an admitted position by the party itself, that these are parts of a chilling plant and the party concerned does not even dispute that they have no independent use, there is no need for the Department to prove the same. It is a basic and settled law that what is admitted need not be proved. The judgment of the Tribunal thus needs to be set aside. It was, however, urged, on behalf of the respondents that there are circulars of the Board which should really have been considered by the Tribunal. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for deciding the same on merits on the basis of the above admitted position. The appeals are allowed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.;