2011 (4) TMI 391 - AT - Central Excise

Classification - Scrutiny - Rule 6 (b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 - Since it was the contention of the assessee that the classification has to be in terms of chapter note 2 (b), it was necessary to ascertain whether the assessee had established the case to the effect that the product in question can be suitably used solely or principally with a particular kind of machine, which are classifiable under the sub-heading enumerated under the said chapter note - Merely because in other cases, the Tribunal has taken a view that the Crank shaft and transmission shaft are classifiable under chapter sub-heading 8483.90 that itself cannot be a justification to hold that the product in question is also classifiable under chapter sub-heading 8483.90 without analysing as to whether the basic requirements of particular chapter note are satisfied or not - Decided in favour of the assessee by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
Classification of product under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985

Analysis:
The case involves the classification of a product by the department under Chapter sub-heading 8483.90, while the appellants argue it should be classified under sub-heading 8433.00. The department issued a show cause notice based on the classification discrepancy observed during the scrutiny of ER-1 returns. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order dropping the proceedings, holding that the product falls under 8483.90 based on previous Tribunal decisions. The appellants contended that the product is not a transmission shaft and should be classified under 8433.00. The Adjudicating Authority's decision was solely based on a diagram without proper analysis of chapter notes. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of establishing if the product is used with a specific machine for classification under the relevant sub-heading. As neither the department nor the appellants provided sufficient evidence to support their classification claims, the Tribunal set aside the previous decisions and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a proper determination based on the law's provisions.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the significance of accurately classifying products under the Central Excise Tariff Act, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence to support classification claims. The Tribunal stressed the importance of analyzing chapter notes and ensuring products meet the requirements for specific sub-headings. The decision underscores the necessity for a thorough examination of facts and adherence to legal provisions in determining the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, ultimately leading to a remand of the case for a proper adjudication by the Adjudicating Authority.