2000 (1) TMI 118 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Classification of Portable All Ball Bearing Electric Blower under CET sub-heading 8414.20 as Electric fan claimed by assessee or under heading 8508.00 as Electro Mechanical tool for working in hand contended by Revenue.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal considered the functions and specifications of the blower, noting its use in industries for blowing air at high speed for dust removal. The blower was described as a powerful suction cleaner or a means of delivering hot air, essential equipment for various industries. A performance test certificate confirmed the product as a centrifugal air blower coupled to an electric motor. The classification was to be determined based on the Rules for Interpretation of the Tariff, Section notes, Chapter notes of CET 1985, and HSN Explanatory notes. The HSN Explanatory Notes on fans under Chapter Heading 8414 distinguished fans designed for air delivery or air movement from the blower's function. The blower, with a nozzle air velocity of 370 KMPH, was meant for cleaning machine parts, acting as a tool. The literature referred to the blower as a portable electric tool, not a fan. The HSN Explanatory Notes excluded industrial blowers as electro mechanical tools for working in hand under Heading 8508. The Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities that the blower was classifiable under CET sub-heading 8508.00, confirming the demand for a specific period but setting aside another demand based on a Supreme Court decision regarding classification list approval and clearances.

The judgment emphasized the functional use and specifications of the blower to determine its classification under the relevant tariff headings. It relied on performance test certificates, HSN Explanatory Notes, and literature descriptions to establish the blower as an electro mechanical tool for working in hand with a self-contained electric motor. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's classification as an electric fan, concluding that the blower's purpose and design aligned more closely with an industrial tool for cleaning machine parts. The decision highlighted the importance of following established classification rules and notes to accurately categorize products for taxation purposes. Additionally, the judgment applied a previous Supreme Court ruling to address the enforceability of demands based on classification list approval, ensuring consistency and compliance with legal precedents in excise duty matters.