2002 (2) TMI 244 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of storage tanks, reservoirs, vats, and similar containers of a capacity not exceeding 300 litres under the Customs Tariff Act.

Analysis:
The appeal concerns the classification of storage tanks, reservoirs, vats, and similar containers with a capacity not exceeding 300 litres under the Customs Tariff Act, effective from 1-4-94. The appellant initially claimed these goods were not dutiable, but the department argued they should be classified under 3925.99. The dispute arose due to an amendment in Note 11 to Chapter 39, specifying that reservoirs, tanks, vats, and similar containers exceeding 300 L fall under Heading 39.25. The appellant argued that goods with a capacity of 300 litres or less would not be classifiable under 39.25 post-amendment, suggesting they should be classified under Heading 39.26 as a residuary entry. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's reliance on a previous case involving polyurethane tanks, emphasizing that the capacity of the tanks was not a decisive factor in classification. The Tribunal concluded that the correct classification for the tanks in question should be under Heading 3926.90, not under the proposed Heading 3925.99 by the department. Following the principles outlined in the Supreme Court's judgment in Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. CCE, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, leaving the department the option to issue a fresh show cause notice if necessary. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the previous order, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the specific headings in dispute in classification matters.

This judgment highlights the significance of accurate classification under the Customs Tariff Act, particularly concerning storage tanks and similar containers. The interpretation of Note 11 to Chapter 39 played a crucial role in determining the appropriate heading for goods with a capacity not exceeding 300 litres. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the post-amendment scenario, clarifying that such goods would fall under Heading 39.26 as a residuary entry, rather than under Heading 39.25 as contended by the department. The Tribunal's rejection of the appellant's reliance on a previous case underscored the need to consider specific headings and descriptions in classification disputes. By aligning with the principles established in relevant Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of limiting classification decisions to the entries in dispute, ensuring accuracy and consistency in customs classification matters.