9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (2) TMI 343 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Classification of various parts and components of ball bearings under Central Excise Tariff Act. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the classification of parts and components of ball bearings. The dispute revolved around whether these parts should be classified under Heading 84.85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the Appellant, or under Heading 84.82 covering "Ball or roller bearings" as contended by the revenue. The Appellant argued that since Heading 84.82 covers ball or roller bearings and not parts, the parts should be classified under the residual entry 8485.90 for machinery parts not specified elsewhere. However, the revenue relied on the HSN explanatory notes and a Supreme Court decision to support the classification under Heading 84.82. The Tribunal examined the entries under Heading 84.82 of the HSN Explanatory notes which specifically covered needle rollers, inner and outer races, inner and outer rings of different dimensions, all of which were parts in question. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in C.C.E., Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized following the nomenclature indicated by the HSN for resolving classification issues unless there is an express different intention indicated by the Central Excise Tariff Act. Since the parts in question were explicitly covered under Heading 84.82 in the HSN explanatory notes and there was no contrary intention in the CETA, the Tribunal found no error in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the parts and components of ball bearings under Heading 84.82 of the Central Excise Tariff Act based on the HSN explanatory notes and the principle of following the nomenclature indicated by the HSN for classification unless there is a clear intention in the CETA indicating otherwise. The decision was in favor of the revenue, dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant.
|
