2002 (5) TMI 367 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of electronic instruments under Heading 90.30 or 85.43 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, and classification of 'oscilloscope trolly' under Heading 94.03 or 90.33 of the Tariff.

Analysis:
1. The appeals involved a dispute over the classification of electronic instruments manufactured by M/s. Scientific MES Technik Ltd. The main issue was whether these instruments should be classified under Heading 90.30 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or under Heading 85.43 as claimed by the Revenue. Additionally, the classification of 'oscilloscope trolly' was also in question regarding whether it falls under Heading 94.03 or 90.33 of the Tariff.

2. The Respondents did not dispute the classification of the 'trolly' under Heading No. 94.03, leading to the Revenue's appeal being allowed in this regard.

3. The Revenue argued that the impugned electronic instruments should be classified under Heading 85.43, emphasizing that these instruments were apparatus for the production of electrical signals with individual functions, distinct from instruments for measuring electrical quantities under Heading 90.30. The technical descriptions of the products supported this classification under Heading 85.43.

4. The Respondents contended that the impugned instruments were accessories of oscilloscopes and should be classified under Heading 90.30. They highlighted that these instruments were used in conjunction with oscilloscopes and were distinct from the 'signal generators' classified under Heading 85.43 in the H.S.N. Explanatory Notes. They also referenced relevant legal notes and industry practices to support their classification argument.

5. The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and examined the relevant Tariff Headings. It was noted that the impugned instruments were mounted on oscilloscopes, but there was no evidence to show that their functions were inseparable from oscilloscopes. The classification rules for parts and accessories under Chapter 90 were analyzed to determine the appropriate classification.

6. Based on the analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned instruments, having individual functions, should be classified under Heading 85.43 rather than Heading 90.30 as accessories of oscilloscopes. The demand for Central Excise duty beyond the time limit was also addressed, with the duty for a specific period being deemed time-barred due to the delayed issuance of the show cause notice.

7. In summary, the Tribunal decided to classify the impugned instruments under Heading 85.43 of the Tariff, acknowledging the limitation on demanding duty beyond a certain period. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.