2004 (2) TMI 396 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Classification of driving goggles manufactured by M/s. Ergo Auto Ltd. under sub-heading 9004.90 or 9004.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification under sub-heading 9004.10 or 9004.90

The appellant argued that sub-heading 9004.10 applies to sunglasses not used for correcting vision, while sub-heading 9004.90 applies to other spectacles, goggles, etc. The driving goggles are meant for protecting motorcyclists against road hazards, not as fashion sunglasses. They referenced a Tribunal decision stating that sunglasses reduce light transmission and avoid glare.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Explanatory Notes

The Departmental Representative countered by referring to the Explanatory Notes of HSN, stating that Heading 9004 includes articles for correcting vision or protecting against various hazards, such as sunglasses for motorists/motorcyclists. Hence, they argued that driving goggles fall under Heading 9004.10.

Judgment:

The Tribunal analyzed Heading 9004, which includes sub-headings 9004.10 for sunglasses and 9004.90 for other articles. Sunglasses are defined as glasses tinted to protect eyes from sunlight or glare. However, driving goggles serve a dual purpose of protecting against various hazards during day and night for motorcyclists.

The Tribunal concluded that driving goggles do not fall under the definition of sunglasses as they are not solely for sunlight protection. The Explanatory Notes mention various types of protective spectacles and goggles separately, including those for motorists and motorcyclists. Therefore, driving goggles are classified under sub-heading 9004.90, not 9004.10.

Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and all appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant.