2008 (2) TMI 5 - SC - Central Excise

Parts of tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles - Since these goods fall under the category of excluded goods under Chapter Notes to Section XVII, even though they are used specifically solely or principally with the armoured vehicles of Heading 8710, they are classifiable under Heading 8536.90

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order by CEGAT dismissing the appellant's appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the classification of goods under Chapter Heading 8710 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

2. The appellant claimed that the goods were manufactured for the Ministry of Defence and should be classified under Chapter sub-heading 8710. They argued that the goods were specifically designed for use in tanks and armoured vehicles, supported by Circular No.17/90 CEX IV and a CT2 certificate.

3. The adjudicating authority classified the goods under Chapter sub-heading 8536.90, citing Note 2(f) to Section XVII, which excludes electrical machinery and equipment under Chapter 85. CEGAT upheld this classification.

4. The appellant contended that the Department failed to prove that the goods fell under Heading 8536.90 and relied on Circular No.17/90-CX.4. However, CEGAT affirmed that the goods were identifiable under Chapter 8536.90 and fell under Chapter 85.

5. Rule 1 on Interpretive Rules dictates that goods should be classified based on the Heading and Section/Chapter notes. The goods in question, such as contractors and switches, are specifically covered under Chapter sub-heading 8536.90, as they are used for electrical circuits.

6. The Explanatory Notes to HSN state that goods under Chapter Heading 8710 must be identifiable for use in vehicles and not excluded by Section XVII notes. Since the goods manufactured by the appellant fell under Chapter 85, they were classified under Chapter Heading 8536.90, despite being used for armoured vehicles.

7. The judgment concluded that the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed accordingly.