1989 (1) TMI 283 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of Chibb Steelage Micro Fire Cabinet under the Harmonised Central Excise Tariff.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal in this case revolves around the classification of the Chibb Steelage Micro Fire Cabinet manufactured by the appellant. The Assistant Collector classified the cabinet under sub-heading 8303.20 of the Harmonised Central Excise Tariff and approved the Classification No. 4/86-87 accordingly. The appellant contested this classification, arguing that the cabinet does not meet the criteria to be classified as a 'safe' as per ISI Specifications No. IS : 550-1979 for 'safes'. They pointed out that the thickness of the plates used in the cabinet's manufacture was below the minimum thickness specified by ISI, and the locking arrangement did not meet security standards. Additionally, they argued that fire-resistance was not a mandatory requirement for a safe under ISI specifications, citing relevant orders and judgments in support of their contentions.

Upon reviewing the case and the record of the personal hearing, it was noted that Heading 8303 of the Central Excise Harmonised Tariff aligns with Heading 83.03 in the Customs Harmonised Tariff. Referring to the Explanatory notes to the Customs Tariff, it was clarified that Heading 83.03 covers containers and strong-room doors designed to secure valuables against theft and fire. Safes under this heading are described as steel containers with armoured walls or sheet reinforced with concrete, fitted with secure locks and often with airtight doors and double walls. The Assistant Collector did not address the ISI specifications cited by the appellant, which prescribed minimum thickness requirements for steel plates and specific standards for doors of the safe. The thickness of the plates used in the appellant's cabinet fell significantly below the ISI standards, and the door lacked the drill-proof layer specified for security. As a result, the cabinet did not meet the minimum security requirements for a safe and could not be considered burglary or fall resistant.

Considering the explanatory notes and the ISI specifications referenced by the appellant, it was determined that the product in question did not meet the standards set by ISI:550:1979 and should be classified under Heading 94.03 of the Central Excise Harmonised Tariff. The appeal was admitted, granting consequential relief to the appellant.