2001 (10) TMI 142 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Classification of thermocole goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act - whether under Sub-heading 8418.90 as parts of refrigerator or under Sub-heading 3926.90 as 'Other articles of plastics'.

Analysis:
1. Classification Issue: The appeal raised the question of classifying thermocole goods, specifically expanded polystyrene blocks/sheets and related articles, under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The appellant argued that these products, used for insulation in refrigerators, should not be automatically classified under Sub-heading 8418.90 as parts of refrigerators. Reference was made to Trade Notice No. 67-CE/1/Ch. 84/86, which distinguished parts of refrigerators that perform cooling functions (List 'A') from those like insulation (List 'B'). The appellant cited precedents, including the case of CCE, Bombay v. Blue Star Ltd., to support the argument that items like thermocole goods, providing insulation and not refrigeration, should be classified differently under Chapter 39 of the Tariff.

2. Counter-Argument: The Department's representative contended that the goods in question, including insulation freezer door and tray, were integral parts of refrigerators, indicated by assigned numbers for specific use. It was argued that as per Note 2(b) to Section XVI of the Tariff, goods used solely in refrigeration should be classified with the machine they serve. Citing legal precedents like Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. CCE, Pune, and CCE, Calcutta v. Jay Engineering Works Ltd., the Department argued that even parts of parts could be classified as parts of a machine, supporting the classification under Heading 84.18.

3. Judgment Analysis: The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and referred to Trade Notice No. 67/86, noting that parts suitable for use with refrigerators need not be automatically classified under Heading 84.18. The Adjudication Order highlighted that goods contributing to efficiency through insulation should not be automatically considered parts of a refrigerator. Agreeing with this finding, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant. The judgment emphasized that properties like insulation, though beneficial for refrigerators, do not automatically warrant classification as parts of the machine, leading to the appeal's success.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the arguments presented, legal precedents cited, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision in the classification dispute regarding thermocole goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act.