2006 (1) TMI 281 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Classification of gears, shafts, and gear-boxes under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Interpretation of Note 2(e) of Section XVII - Whether goods should be classified under Heading 84.83 or 87.08.

Analysis:

1. Classification Dispute:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the classification of gears, shafts, and gear-boxes under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant argues for classification under Heading 84.83, while the department contends that these goods should be classified under Heading 87.08 as parts of motor vehicles. The crux of the dispute lies in the interpretation of Note 2(e) of Section XVII of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

2. Interpretation of Note 2(e):
Note 2(e) of Section XVII of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 is crucial in determining the classification of the goods in question. The note explicitly states that articles of Heading No. 84.83 will not be considered as parts of motor vehicles provided they constitute integral parts of engines or motors. This interpretation is pivotal in deciding whether the impugned goods should be classified under Heading 84.83 or 87.08.

3. Precedents and Tribunal Decisions:
The Tribunal considers past decisions to reach a conclusion in this case. Reference is made to the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, where goods similar to the impugned goods were classified under Chapter 87 based on the interpretation of Section Note 2(e) of Section XVII. The Tribunal distinguishes the decision in the case of Commissioner, Chennai v. Best Cast (P) Ltd., emphasizing that it did not refer to Section Note 2(e) in its operative part.

4. Decision and Ruling:
After thorough consideration of the arguments and precedents, the Tribunal rules in favor of classifying the impugned goods under Heading 87.08. The duty demand against the appellants is upheld, but they are allowed to utilize the credit of duty paid on these goods under Heading 87.08 when used in further manufacture in their own unit. Consequently, Appeal Nos. E/2030 & 2031/00 and cross-objection No. E/CO-272/2000 are dismissed, while Appeal No. E/2056/2000 filed by the department is allowed in the specified terms.

5. Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, in its judgment, provides a detailed analysis of the classification dispute regarding gears, shafts, and gear-boxes under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. By interpreting Note 2(e) of Section XVII and considering relevant precedents, the Tribunal resolves the issue by classifying the goods under Heading 87.08, upholding the duty demand but allowing credit utilization for further manufacture.