2001 (4) TMI 125 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Classification of name plates, labels, and emblems made from plastic for use on motor vehicles under Chapter 87 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as parts of motor vehicles or under sub-heading 3926.90 as other articles of plastics.

Analysis:
1. The appellant argued that the goods manufactured are specifically designed for motor vehicles and are essential for identifying a particular vehicle. The advocate relied on previous decisions to support the classification of the goods under Heading 8708 or 8714. The appellant also highlighted the inconsistency of classification by different Commissioners (Appeals) for similar products. Additionally, the appellant presented evidence that customers treat the goods as parts of motor vehicles due to assigned part numbers.

2. The respondent contended that the impugned goods cannot be considered as parts of motor vehicles as a vehicle functions without them. The respondent argued that as the goods are made of plastics, they should be classified under Heading No. 39.26. Previous decisions were cited to support this argument, emphasizing the classification of similar products under different headings based on material and function. The respondent also referred to a decision regarding the classification of video cassettes covers to support their argument.

3. The tribunal considered both arguments and emphasized that for a component to be classified as a part, it must be an essential element of a sub-assembly without which the final product cannot be conceived. It was noted that a motor vehicle remains complete even without the affixation of name plates, labels, or emblems. The tribunal clarified that the Supreme Court's decision in a previous case did not support the appellant's argument that name plates are parts of the vehicle. The tribunal concluded that as the impugned goods are made of plastics, they fall under the classification of articles of plastics under Heading 39.26. The tribunal dismissed the appeal based on these findings.

4. The tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that similar circumstances should lead to consistent treatment, stating that different interpretations of the law may arise. The tribunal differentiated the facts of previous cases cited by both parties and highlighted that the classification of a product should be based on merit. Ultimately, the tribunal upheld the classification of the impugned goods under Heading 39.26 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, leading to the rejection of the appeal.