2002 (9) TMI 351 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of Yaskavan Inverters under Heading 90.32.
2. Interpretation of Section note 6(b) to Chapter 90 and Explanatory notes to 9032.00 regarding Automatic Regulator of Electrical Quantities.

Issue 1: Classification of Yaskavan Inverters under Heading 90.32

The judgment revolves around the appeal challenging the classification of Yaskavan Inverters under Heading 90.32. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the classification based on technical literature and expert opinions. The inverters were found to be more than simple inverters, programmable, capable of converting AC to DC and vice versa, and automatically controlling parameters like stall prevention. The Commissioner's decision was supported by HSN explanatory notes to CTH 90.32, which cover automatic regulators of electrical quantities. The judgment emphasized that the inverters are similar to those discussed in a conference of Commissioners, being drives for controlling motors, programmable, and capable of automatic regulation of electrical quantities. Expert opinions from professors further supported the classification under Heading 90.32, leading to the appeal being allowed.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section note 6(b) to Chapter 90 and Explanatory notes to 9032.00

The learned DR argued that the inverters did not meet the criteria of an automatic controlling instrument under Section note 6(b) and Explanatory notes to 9032.00. It was contended that the inverters lacked specific devices for operation, thus should be classified under 8504.40 of the CTA. However, the counsel for the respondent defended the classification under Heading 90.32, citing detailed catalogues and expert opinions from professors. The judgment highlighted that the Commissioner (Appeals) thoroughly examined the technical parameters of the inverters, considering expert opinions and technical literature. The absence of rebuttal evidence challenging the expert opinions led to the decision to uphold the classification under Heading 90.32, rejecting the Revenue appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CHENNAI provides a comprehensive overview of the issues related to the classification of Yaskavan Inverters and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and expert opinions.