2008 (9) TMI 652 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Classification of springs under the Central Excise Tariff and entitlement to cum-duty benefit.

Classification of springs: The appeal was filed against an order confirming the demand for springs classified under Chapter 73 of the Tariff. The appellants argued that the springs, designed for agricultural machinery, should be classified under Heading 84.32. They presented a certificate from the manufacturer supporting this claim. However, the Revenue contended that Section Note classified springs under Chapter 73.20, specifically covering iron or steel springs and leaves. The Tribunal found that as per Note 2(b) of Section XV, parts of general use, including springs and leaves, are excluded from Chapter 84. Therefore, the springs were rightly classified under Heading 73.20, and the impugned order was upheld.

Entitlement to cum-duty benefit: The appellants also claimed entitlement to cum-duty price based on a Supreme Court decision in the case of CCE, Delhi v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. The Tribunal, in line with the Maruti Udyog case, granted the appellants the cum-duty benefit. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi addressed the issues of classification of springs under the Central Excise Tariff and the entitlement to cum-duty benefit. The Tribunal upheld the classification of the springs under Chapter 73.20 based on the exclusion of parts of general use from Chapter 84. Additionally, the appellants were granted the cum-duty benefit in accordance with the Supreme Court decision in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd.