2003 (11) TMI 79 - SC - Central Excise

Forgings and forged articles of alloy steel - Classification of goods - Held that - goods have to be classified as parts of motor vehicles. This very finding of the Tribunal negatives the scope for any argument based on the Ist part of Rule 2a of Interpretation Rules contained in Central Excise Tariff Act - it may be stated that a similar view was taken by the Tribunal in Sikka Heat Treatment Industry v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi reported in 1995 (6) TMI 34 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI and that order of the Tribunal has been confirmed by this Court vide 1997 (7) TMI 121 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (Veekay Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi) - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Correct classification of products as forgings and forged articles of alloy steel under Tariff Item 73.26 vs. parts of motor vehicles under Item No. 87.08.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of correct classification of products in question, described as forgings and forged articles of alloy steel. The assessee-respondent claimed that the articles fall under Tariff Item 73.26 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, while the Department argued that they should be classified under Item No. 87.08 as parts of motor vehicles, specifically "gears & pinions." The majority members of the Tribunal found that the goods were unmachined forgings, still requiring several processes to meet the necessary specifications and dimensions. They noted that the products had not acquired the essential characteristics of a part of a motor vehicle, being straight from forging without significant additional processes. This finding led the Court to reject the Revenue's appeal, as it was futile to classify the goods as parts of motor vehicles based on Rule 2a of the Interpretation Rules in the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Court cited a previous case where a similar view was upheld by the Tribunal and confirmed by the Court, further supporting their decision.

The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the Tribunal's findings left no room to apply Rule 2(a) of the Interpretation Rules, despite attempts by the appellant's Senior Counsel to argue otherwise. The judgment reaffirmed that the products in question, being unmachined forgings without essential characteristics of motor vehicle parts, should be classified under Tariff Item 73.26 rather than Item No. 87.08. The decision highlighted the importance of the Tribunal's factual findings in determining the correct classification of goods for excise purposes, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal with no costs awarded.