2010 (10) TMI 230 - AT - Central Excise

Classification - Parboiling machinery, drier plant and rice mill in conjunction form the paddy processing - Chapter Note 2, the parboiling machine merit classification under heading 8419 but as per Section Note 3 and 4, the machinery merit classification under heading 8437 - taking into consideration the Board s Circular which is binding on the department, the appellants are justified in contending that the product in question is classifiable under CETH 8437 - Appeal, accordingly stands disposed off by way of remand

Summary

Issues involved: Classification of the product under Central Excise Tariff Heading (CETH) 8419 or CETH 8437.

Analysis:
1. The issue in this case revolves around the classification of the product under Central Excise Tariff Heading (CETH) 8419 or CETH 8437. The department argues for classification under CETH 8419, while the assessee contends that it should be classified under CETH 8437.

2. The appellants' counsel referred to Board Circular No. 924/14/2010-CX, which discusses the classification of rice parboiling machinery. The Circular emphasizes that classification should be determined based on the headings, section notes, and chapter notes. Section Note 3 and 4 to Section XVI, along with Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 84, play a crucial role in determining the classification of composite machines.

3. Section Note 3 and 4 to Section XVI state that composite machines or machines performing multiple functions should be classified based on the principal function they perform. Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 84 specifies that if a machine can be classified under two headings, it should be classified under the heading that takes precedence. In this case, the parboiling machinery is considered to perform the principal function of rice milling, leading to its classification under CETH 8437.

4. The Board's Circular supports the classification of rice parboiling machinery under CETH 8437, and the respondent's counsel acknowledges the validity of this argument based on the Circular. Consequently, the impugned order classifying the product under various sub-headings of CETH 8419 is set aside, and the matter is remanded for reclassification in line with the Board Circular.

5. The Tribunal sets aside the impugned order and remands the matter to the adjudicating authority for finalizing the classification based on the Board Circular. The appeal is disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the provisions of law in determining the correct classification of the product.

By analyzing the relevant legal provisions, circulars, and arguments presented, the Tribunal clarifies the classification issue and directs the reclassification of the product under CETH 8437, highlighting the significance of following established guidelines and precedents in such matters.