2000 (1) TMI 73 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of mineral insulated thermocouple leads.
2. Applicability of Heading No. 85.44 versus Heading No. 90.25/90.33 of the Central Excise Tariff.
3. Relevance of previous decisions and tariff advices.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Mineral Insulated Thermocouple Leads:

M/s. Fykays Engg. Pvt. Ltd. manufactured mineral insulated thermocouple leads, claiming classification under sub-heading No. 9033.10, while the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise classified them under sub-heading No. 8544.00. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) later classified the goods under heading No. 90.25.

2. Applicability of Heading No. 85.44 Versus Heading No. 90.25/90.33:

- Revenue's Argument:
- The Revenue argued that heading No. 85.44 was broad enough to cover the product as insulated cables used as conductors in temperature control equipment. They cited the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System (HSN) Explanatory Notes to support their claim that Heading No. 85.44 included insulated electric wires, cables, and other conductors used in electrical machinery.
- They also referenced the Tribunal's decision in Toshniwal Cables v. C.C.E., Jaipur, where it was held that such cables were classifiable under sub-heading No. 8544.00.

- Respondent's Argument:
- The respondent argued that the compensating cables were accessories for pyrometers and should be classified under Heading No. 90.25/90.33. They relied on the Board's Tariff Advice No. 6/82, which clarified that compensating cables were classifiable under Item No. 68 and not under Item No. 33 B of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.
- The respondent contended that Heading No. 85.44 was applicable only to cables usable for conducting electric current and referred to the HSN Explanatory Notes.

3. Relevance of Previous Decisions and Tariff Advices:

- Previous Tribunal Decisions:
- In Toshniwal Cables v. CCE, Jaipur, the Tribunal held that compensating cables were classifiable under Heading No. 85.44.
- However, in subsequent decisions like Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Fibre Products and Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Popular Enterprises and Brooks Cable Works, Mumbai, the Tribunal classified such cables under Heading No. 90.33, following the Board's Tariff Advice and without noticing the earlier Toshniwal Cables decision.

Tribunal's Observations:

- The Tribunal noted that the thermocouple leads were used to connect thermocouples to pyrometers for temperature measurement, and the transmission of electromotive force from thermocouple to pyrometer could not be treated as the transmission of electrical energy.
- The Tribunal emphasized that the characteristics of the compensating cables had not changed despite amendments in the Tariff Act.
- Heading 85.44 covered insulated wires, cables, and other insulated electric conductors, but the Tribunal concluded that thermocouple leads did not fit this description as they were not used for conducting electrical energy.
- The Tribunal found that thermocouple leads were essential parts of pyrometers and should be classified under Heading No. 90.25, which covers pyrometers and similar instruments.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue and confirmed the classification of mineral insulated thermocouple leads under Heading No. 90.25, sub-heading No. 9025.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. The decision in the case of Toshniwal Cables was not agreed upon, and the Tribunal upheld the decisions in Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Fibre Products and Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Popular Enterprises and Brooks Cable Works, Mumbai.