1989 (6) TMI 140 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff.
2. Application of Rule 2(a) of the Rules of Interpretation.
3. Jurisdiction and competence of the Assistant Collector to modify classification lists.

Summary:

Issue 1: Classification of Goods under Central Excise Tariff
The respondent, M/s. Subros Ltd., filed classification lists for gas compressors and air-conditioning parts for cars and light commercial vehicles. The Assistant Collector initially approved these under sub-headings 8414.10 and 8415.00 respectively. However, the Assistant Collector later reclassified these items as complete air-conditioning units under sub-heading 8415.00, attracting a higher duty rate of Rs. 8000 per piece. The Collector (Appeals) disagreed, stating that the items did not include a motor-driven fan or blower, essential for classification under sub-heading 8415.00. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing that the goods did not meet the criteria for air-conditioning machines as per the tariff and Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSCN).

Issue 2: Application of Rule 2(a) of the Rules of Interpretation
The Assistant Collector applied Rule 2(a) of the Rules of Interpretation, concluding that the respondent's products had the essential character of air-conditioners. This rule states that incomplete or unassembled articles should be classified as if they were complete. However, the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal found this application incorrect, as the goods lacked essential components like a motor-driven fan or blower, which are necessary for the classification as air-conditioning machines under sub-heading 8415.00.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction and Competence of the Assistant Collector to Modify Classification Lists
The Collector (Appeals) held that the Assistant Collector was not competent to modify the approved classification lists while an appeal under Section 35E(4) was pending. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the Assistant Collector's actions were beyond his jurisdiction and in excess of his authority.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the six appeals filed by the Revenue, upholding the Collector (Appeals)'s decision that the goods should be classified based on the original classification lists filed by the respondent. The goods were not considered complete air-conditioning units and thus could not be classified under sub-heading 8415.00. The Tribunal directed the Revenue authorities to give consequential effect to this order.