1985 (5) TMI 227 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of product as utensil under Notification No. 244/77 - Aluminium Gas Tandoor under Tariff Item 68 of CET.

Analysis:
The Appellant, Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, challenged the Order-in-Appeal passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, which classified the respondent's product, Aluminium Gas Tandoor, as a utensil of aluminium and exempt under Notification No. 244/77. The Appellant argued that the product did not meet the criteria of an aluminium utensil as per ISI specifications and common parlance understanding of utensils. They contended that the product was a multipurpose complicated covered equipment with a heat control mechanism, requiring skill in handling, and if it used electricity, it would be classified differently. The Appellant sought to set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) and restore that of the Assistant Collector.

On behalf of the respondents, it was argued that the product, named Sizzler Gas-Tan door-cum-Oven, was considered a utensil in trade and certificates from traders supported this claim. A sample of the product was produced for inspection, showing that gas enters the Tandoor, there is a pan for heating bread or rotis, and a small aluminium utensil for baking cakes. It was emphasized that the product was commonly understood as a utensil in trade.

The Tribunal found that the reference to ISI specifications was not raised earlier in the proceedings and did not conclusively rule out the classification of Aluminium Gas Tandoor as a utensil. The Tribunal also noted that the reasoning of the Collector (Appeals) was well-founded, considering various dictionaries, circulars, and certificates from traders defining the product as a utensil. The Tribunal agreed with the Collector (Appeals) that the product fell under the category of utensil, even though it had multiple functions and did not use electricity as a source of energy.

Additionally, the Tribunal addressed the argument regarding the advertisement of the product claiming various virtues, stating that such claims in advertisements do not impact the classification of goods for duty liability. The Tribunal cited a Bombay High Court case to emphasize that the classification of goods depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and advertising claims should not be the sole criterion for classification.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), affirming the classification of the Aluminium Gas Tandoor as an aluminium utensil under Notification No. 244/77.