2004 (8) TMI 451 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Schedule heading 8479.00 vs. 8422.90, re-quantification of duty demands, classification of additional items as attachments & accessories.

Classification under Central Excise Tariff Schedule heading 8479.00 vs. 8422.90:
The appellants claimed that goods like Capsule Filling Machine, Automatic Capsule Loading Machine, and others should be classified under heading 8479.00, while the department argued for classification under 8422.90. The appellants contended that capsules are not containers but integral parts of medicine formulation, and the machines in question have distinct functions, correctly falling under 8479.00. However, the Tribunal found that the Capsule Loading Machine, despite being ancillary to the Capsule Filling Machine, lacked an independent function and thus upheld its classification under 8422.90. The matter of duty demands was remitted back to the Dy. Commissioner for re-calculation based on the re-quantification of demands.

Re-quantification of duty demands:
The Tribunal directed the Dy. Commissioner to rework the calculations of duty demands after hearing the appellants, indicating a partial allowance of the appeal for the purpose of adjusting duty demands if necessary. The learned Advocate waived the argument regarding the demand being prospective only, leading to a partial allowance of the appeal for re-quantification of demands.

Classification of additional items as attachments & accessories:
The appeal also addressed additional items like Interchangeable Sections, Tablet Filling Attachment, and Partial Filling Attachment to Capsule Filling Machines. These items were considered attachments and accessories with no independent function apart from being components of the Capsule Filling Machine. Applying Section Note XV, 2(b), these items were classified under 8422.90. The Tribunal partially allowed these appeals for the re-quantification of duty demands and upheld the classification under heading 8422.90 for these additional items.

In conclusion, all appeals were partially allowed for re-quantification of duty demands, and the matter was remanded to the Dy. Commissioner for necessary adjustments. The Tribunal upheld the classification of the goods under heading 8422.90 based on the functions and interdependence of the machines involved.