2006 (1) TMI 321 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Misclassification of parts of refrigerant compressor under various headings of Chapter 84 and undervaluation of OTC/semi-hermetic compressors by non-inclusion of value of bought out items.

In this case, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, addressed the issue of misclassification of parts of refrigerant compressor and undervaluation of OTC/semi-hermetic compressors by non-inclusion of the value of bought-out items. The show cause notice alleged misclassification of parts under various headings of Chapter 84 instead of under CET sub-heading 8415.92 and undervaluation of compressors. The Commissioner adjudicated the notice and accepted the contention that parts of gas compressors do not merit classification under CET sub-heading 8414.92. The Commissioner also ruled that the value of bought-out accessories need not be included in the assessable value of the manufactured items. The Revenue appealed this decision.

The Tribunal analyzed the classification of parts under Note 2(a) to Section XVI, stating that parts included in any headings of Chapter 84 or 85 are to be classified in their respective headings. Specific parts like "bearing housing" are classified under Heading 84.83 based on Rule 3(a) of the Rules for interpretation of the tariff, which favors more specific descriptions. The Tribunal referred to HSN General Explanatory Notes and previous Tribunal orders to support their decision. They cited cases like Chamundi Machine Tools Ltd., Instrumentation Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Textool Co. Ltd., and Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. to reinforce their classification ruling.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision on the classification of parts of refrigerant compressors under various headings of Chapter 84. They emphasized that the value of bought-out accessories like drive set, V-belts, flexible coupling, pulleys, and base plate does not need to be included in the assessable value of the compressor. The Tribunal referenced a recent order in CCE, Ahmedabad v. Air Control & Chem. Engg. Co. Ltd. to support this stance. Consequently, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and upheld the decision, rejecting the appeal by the Revenue.