2016 (12) TMI 838 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of manufactured product - Guard of Kiln Ring Gear, classified under head 8417 or 8483 - Travelling Carriage Bogie, classified under 8474 or 8431 - common parlance test followed to decided classification. Held that - We are of the view that the classification of such goods can be finalized only after going through detailed technical write-up regarding nature of the product and its proposed use. Though the ld. Counsel for the appellant has explained during hearing that a technical write-up along with drawing has been submitted by the assesee before the adjudicating authority, we find that same has not been discussed in detail. Under the circumstances, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) with the direction to consider the technical write-up of the product in question and finalise the classification by giving detailed finding - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of two products - Guard of Kiln Ring Gear and Travelling Carriage Bogie.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to the classification of two products manufactured and cleared by the appellant. The first product, Guard of Kiln Ring Gear, was initially classified under heading 8429 but later changed to 8417 by the appellant. The second product, Travelling Carriage Bogie, was classified under 8474 by the appellant, which was changed to 8431. The original authority revised the classification, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appellant challenging the decision before the Tribunal.

The nature of the products being parts of machines is crucial in determining their classification. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the nature of the product, its function, and the machinery in which it is intended to be used. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the appellant had voluntarily paid central excise duty on a similar product, accepting its classification under a specific sub-heading. The Commissioner also highlighted the lack of technical opinion supporting the appellant's claim and referred to the common parlance test prescribed by the Supreme Court for classification.

In light of the above, the Tribunal found it necessary to review a detailed technical write-up regarding the nature of the products and their proposed use. Although the appellant mentioned submitting a technical write-up and drawings during the hearing, the Tribunal observed that these were not thoroughly discussed. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with directions to consider the technical write-up provided by the appellant and finalize the classification with detailed findings. The appellant was granted the option to submit additional technical information within a specified timeframe to expedite the resolution of the case.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive technical analysis to determine the correct classification of the disputed products. The Tribunal instructed the Commissioner (Appeals) to complete the case within one month from receiving the technical write-up from the appellant, ensuring a timely resolution of the matter.