Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad REGIONAL BENCH- COURT NO. 2 EXCISE Appeal No. 11170 of 2019-DB (Arising out of OIA-CCESA-SRT-APPEAL-PS-836-2018-19 dated 28/02/2019 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise -SURAT-I)

Gayatri Engineering …… Appellant PLOT NO. 9, GOVT INDUSTRIAL ESTAT, MASAT, SILVASSA, DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST &

CENTRAL EXCISE-DAMAN ……Respondent

3RD FLOOR...ADARSH DHAM BUILDING, VAPI-DAMAN ROAD, VAPI OPP.VAPI TOWN POLICE STATION, VAPI, GUJARAT- 396191 APPEARANCE:

Shri Devashish K Trivedi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri A. R. Kanani, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. AJAYA KRISHNA VISHVESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. SATENDRA VIKRAM SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Final Order No. 10096/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 15.10.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 16.02.2026 SATENDRA VIKRAM SINGH M/s Gayatri Engineering, Silvassa (Appellant) are engaged in the manufacture of “MS frame part” and “tank” for Transformers classifying the same under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tarif Act, 1985. During audit of their records, during April to June 2007, the officers observed that the appellant had shown clearance of “MS frame part” and “tank” for transformers under CTH 85049010 and paid duty @ 10% in terms of Sr. No. 346 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 as amended instead of correct classification of these items under CTH 73269099 as articles of Iron and Steel attracting Central excise duty @ 12%. The basis of their belief was that the goods manufactured were not used in/fitted with any electrical/mechanical devices and hence, not classifiable as parts of electric transformers. The Revenue issued a show cause notice dated 09.02.2018 (which was received by the appellant on 27.02.2018), proposing classification of “MS frame part” and “tanks” for transformer under CTH 73269099 and demanding differential duty of Rs. 3,69,311/- under Proviso to Section 11A along with interest under Section 11AA and penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

1.1 The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 18.10.2018 wherein he held classification of the products under CTH 73269099, confirmed differential duty of Rs. 3,69,311/- under Section 11A(4) along with interest under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1994 and imposed penalty @ 50% of the duty amount under Section 11AC read with rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved with this order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned order dated 28.02.2019 upheld the order of the lower authority and rejected the appeal. Hence, the present appeal before Tribunal.

2. In appeal, the appellant took following grounds:-

• The impugned order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice as the lower authorities have not considered their grounds and submissions. The authorities below have treated the goods as Articles of iron and steel and confirmed classification under 73269099 leviable to duty @ 12% whereas these parts have been manufactured by them as per specific drawing provided by the respective buyer as parts of transformer. They made factual submission in the form of copy of the invoices, purchase orders and the drawings and design supplied by the buyers to establish that these parts were specifically manufactured for transformer, the authorities held their classification as articles of iron and steel under CTH 73269099 is not justified. As they had manufactured these parts as original equipments for manufacturing of transformers, these are appropriately classifiable under CTH 85049010.

• They also submitted copy of the Chartered Engineer’s certificate dated

09.04.2018 certifying that the disputed products are parts of transformers only and not parts of general application. Similar certificates were also submitted of the buyers namely M/s Kryfs Power and M/s Sudhir Tr