Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2006 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (7) TMI 394 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Classification of item 'Blow-vac Portable Vacuum Cleaner' under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Electro-mechanical Domestic Appliance or Electro-mechanical tools for industrial use. Analysis: The appeals involved a common issue of classification under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant contended that the 'Blow-vac Portable Vacuum Cleaner' should be classified under chapter sub-heading 8508.00 as 'Electro-mechanical tools for working in the hand with self-contained electric motor' for industrial use, contrary to the Revenue's classification under sub-heading 8509.00 as 'Electro-mechanical domestic appliance'. The Assistant Commissioner's Order-in-Original supported the appellant's claim, emphasizing the industrial utility of the item. The appellant presented a 'Technical Write-up' highlighting the industrial applications of the product, such as foundries, cooling equipment, and lamination equipment, supporting their argument that it is not intended for domestic use. The Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the Revenue's classification under sub-heading 8509.00 as 'Electro-mechanical domestic appliance' without substantial evidence. However, the CESTAT found merit in the appellant's argument, supported by the 'Technical Write-up' and marketing for industrial use. The CESTAT referenced previous judgments and HSN Explanatory Notes to conclude that the item should be classified under chapter sub-heading 8508.00 for industrial tools, not as a domestic appliance. They cited the case of Fal Industries v. CCE, Chennai, which emphasized that heavy-duty machinery for industrial use cannot be classified as a domestic appliance. The CESTAT dismissed the Commissioner (Appeals)' orders, noting the lack of evidence supporting the Revenue's classification and the industrial nature of the item. They also distinguished the case of Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. CC, Bangalore, where the item was found to be a domestic appliance based on the catalogue, which was not applicable in the current scenario. Ultimately, the CESTAT set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)' orders and allowed both appeals, upholding the classification of the 'Blow-vac Portable Vacuum Cleaner' under chapter sub-heading 8508.00 for industrial use.
|