2003 (12) TMI 427 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of sheet metal fabricated parts of machinery under sub-heading 8538.00 or sub-heading 8485.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore involved a dispute regarding the classification of sheet metal fabricated parts of machinery. The Assistant Commissioner had classified these parts under sub-heading 8538.00, while the respondents contended that they should be classified under sub-heading 8485.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the respondents, classifying the products under sub-heading 8485.90.

The Revenue, represented by Smt. Radha Arun, argued that the impugned goods were not solely for electrical equipment use, as they were intended for various applications beyond electrical equipment and did not contain electrical or electronic parts. Referring to the HSN explanatory note under Heading 8485.90, it was highlighted that parts of machinery not specifically designed for use solely with a particular machine should be classified under the same heading as that machine, or a separate heading if provided. The Revenue contended that the disputed goods, being specially manufactured for mounting electric or electrical components, should be classified under sub-heading 8538.00.

On the other hand, Shri K.K. Varier, representing the respondents, argued that the impugned goods did not align with the machinery or apparatus specified under Heading 85.35, 85.36, or 85.37, which are the categories for parts suitable for use with specific electrical apparatus. It was emphasized that the Department failed to establish that the sheet metal enclosures and other parts were intended for machinery falling under the specified headings. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly rejected the Department's classification claim.

After considering the arguments presented by both sides, the Tribunal found that the Revenue did not provide evidence to demonstrate that the disputed machinery parts were intended for machinery falling under Heading 85.35, 85.36, or 85.37. As a result, in the absence of such evidence, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in denying the Department's claim to classify the parts under Heading 85.38. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the reasoning provided was sound, and hence dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.