2018 (2) TMI 611 - AT - Central Excise

Liability of Central Excise Duty - manufacture of tyres, tubes and flaps falling under Central Excise Tariff Headings 40.11, 40.12 and 40.13 - Section 4A of the CEA 1944 read with N/N. 11/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated 29-5-2006 - Held that - tyres, tubes and flaps manufactured by the appellant s unit at Mysore is not to be assessed under Section 4A as parts of automobile. It is to be noted here that tyres and tubes are not only used for automobiles. They are used in animal drawn vehicles, aircrafts and various other machineries. It is not tenable to hold the tyres and tubes are to be considered as parts and components of automobiles. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of the appellant to pay Central Excise duty on tyres, tubes, and flaps under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Classification of tyres, tubes, and flaps as "parts, components and assemblies of automobiles" under Notification No. 11/2006-C.E. (N.T.).
3. Application of the commercial identity test for classification of goods.
4. Dispute resolution based on previous appellate orders and the use of tyres and tubes in various vehicles and machinery.

Analysis:
1. The dispute in this case revolves around the liability of the appellant to pay Central Excise duty on tyres, tubes, and flaps under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue asserted that these items fall under the description on Sl. No. 97 of Notification No. 11/2006-C.E. (N.T.) as "parts, components and assemblies of automobiles," subjecting the appellant to duty based on MRP with an abatement of 33.5%.

2. The Tribunal examined the classification issue by considering the commercial identity test over the functional test. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.S. Auto International Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh, it was emphasized that goods should be classified based on how they are referred to in the market. The Tribunal also cited other Supreme Court cases like CCE v. Wockhardt Life Sciences Ltd., emphasizing the importance of determining classification based on common parlance and commercial understanding.

3. The Tribunal highlighted a similar dispute involving the appellant's unit in Mysore, where the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled that tyres, tubes, and flaps manufactured there should not be assessed under Section 4A as parts of an automobile. It was noted that these items have uses beyond automobiles, such as in animal-drawn vehicles and aircraft, making it untenable to classify them solely as automobile components.

4. Based on the analysis of the commercial identity test and the varied applications of tyres and tubes, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's position. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal reasoning and application of relevant precedents in resolving the issues raised in the case concerning Central Excise duty liability and the classification of specific goods under the Central Excise Act.