1987 (8) TMI 86 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of switches under Central Excise Tariff.
2. Influence of Tariff Advice on classification.
3. Quasi-judicial functions of officers in classification.
4. Commercial understanding in determining classification.
5. Consideration of certificates from dealers in classification.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the classification of switches manufactured by the petitioners under the Central Excise Tariff. The switches were initially classified under Tariff Item 34A but were later sought to be classified under Item 61 of the Tariff, which pertains to electric lighting fittings. The main issue was whether the switches should be considered as automobile spares or electrical fittings.

2. The Department's classification was influenced by a Tariff Advice directing the switches to be classified under Item 61. However, the petitioners argued that such directions were subversive of the quasi-judicial process. The petitioners contended that officers deciding on classification should do so in a judicial manner, and higher authorities should not control quasi-judicial functions.

3. The judgment highlighted the importance of commercial understanding in classification. Referring to previous cases, the court emphasized that the commercial perception of the product is crucial in determining its classification. The court cited a case involving automobile starters to illustrate that products should be classified based on how they are commercially known.

4. The court considered certificates issued by reputed dealers in auto-electric spare parts to support the petitioners' claim that the switches were known as parts of motor vehicles, not as electric switches for lighting. The certificates indicated that the switches were not commonly found in the electric lighting trade but were prevalent among dealers of motor vehicle accessories.

5. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, concluding that the switches should be classified as automobile spare parts under the Residuary Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The court ordered the bank guarantees given to the Department to be discharged and returned to the petitioners, with no costs imposed on either party. The judgment underscored the significance of commercial perception and dealer certificates in determining the classification of products under the Central Excise Tariff.