2004 (8) TMI 174 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification dispute regarding a "cluster of instruments" for the period 1991-1996.

Summary:
The dispute arose when the department preferred to classify the cluster under sub-heading 8708.00, attracting a higher duty rate, while the respondents classified it under sub-heading 9031.00 and paid duty accordingly. The original authority upheld the department's classification, but the Commissioner (Appeals) classified the individual instruments in the cluster under different headings in the CETA Schedule. The department challenged this classification in the present appeals.

The main ground of the appeals was based on the HSN Explanatory Notes to Chapters 87 & 90. The Tribunal had previously classified identical goods under Heading 8708.00 in a similar case. The respondents sought to defend the impugned order by referencing HSN Notes under Chapter 90 and distinguishing the case cited by the department.

Upon consideration, the Tribunal found that the lower appellate authority had incorrectly classified the goods under headings not claimed by the assessee or suggested by the department. The only question for consideration was whether the goods should be classified under sub-heading 9031.00 as claimed by the assessee or under sub-heading 8708.00 as claimed by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that the goods should be classified under sub-heading 8708.00 as parts of motor vehicles, affirming the original authority's decision and upholding the duty demand.

Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the classification of the goods under sub-heading 8708.00 was affirmed, leading to the affirmation of the duty demand and allowing the appeals.