2010 (2) TMI 575 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of product under Heading 8707.90 of the Tariff as Chassis fitted with a cab - Appellant claimed the classification of the product in question as tractor classifiable under Heading 8701.90 Held that - product in question is a complete in itself and as per the HSN Explanatory Notes if the article is complete or substantially complete of a tractor or other vehicle it is not covered by the Heading 8706 which relates to chassis - order is set aside and Appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues: Classification of product under Heading 8707.90 vs. 8701.90 of the Tariff

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the classification of the product under Heading 8707.90 as "Chassis fitted with a cab," contending that it should be classified as a tractor under Heading 8701.90. The appellant relied on a previous Tribunal decision in a similar case. The Revenue argued that the tariff entries under the Customs Tariff and Central Excise Tariff are different, making the previous decision inapplicable. The dispute pertained to a specific period, and the Revenue accepted the classification under Heading 8701.90 post that period.

Analysis:
The appellant argued that the product in question is not a chassis but a tractor, citing HSN Explanatory Notes. They contended that a complete or substantially complete tractor is not classified as a chassis under Heading 8706. The appellant referred to Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 87 to support their argument. The Tribunal found that the product was designed solely as a prime mover for hauling a semi-trailer, meeting the definition of a tractor. Thus, the previous decision's ratio was deemed applicable, and the product was classified under 8701.90.

Analysis:
The Revenue relied on Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 87 to classify the goods as chassis under Heading 8706. Despite the Revenue's argument, the Tribunal found that the product, similar to the one in a previous case, was a complete tractor and not merely a chassis. The Tribunal emphasized that the product's completeness as a tractor, along with the Revenue's acceptance of the classification post a certain date, supported the appellant's claim. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.