1994 (10) TMI 142 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of tool tips under Tariff Item No. 62 or T.I. 68 of Central Excise Tariff.

The judgment revolves around the classification of tool tips manufactured from tungsten carbides under Tariff Item No. 62 or T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Collector (Appeals) had previously classified the goods under T.I. 62, but the appellant, M/s. Widia (India) Ltd., claimed assessment under T.I. 68. The appellant argued that the goods were not tool tips as commonly understood and were not used for metal removal. They presented expert opinions to support their claim, including letters from the Central Machine Tool Institute and the Indian Institute of Science. The Central Excise Tariff under Item 62 covers tool tips made of sintered carbides of metals like tungsten, without specifying the purpose of cutting or metal removal. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, confirming the classification under T.I. 62, emphasizing that once items are identifiable as tool tips, they must be classified accordingly.

The appellant manufactured inserts for various applications and claimed classification under T.I. 62. However, they later sought classification under T.I. 68, arguing that the inserts made from tungsten carbide were not tool tips and did not function as such. They contended that tool tips are used for cutting metals, unlike their products. The appellant cited judgments and definitions to support their position. The lower authorities had considered expert opinions and previous decisions, including the Tribunal's ruling in a similar case. The appellant's arguments were based on trade and commercial parlance definitions of tool tips and the function of cutting tools for metal removal.

The Tribunal analyzed the competing entries of Tariff Item 62 and Tariff Item 68. Tariff Item 62 specifically covers tool tips made of sintered carbides of metals like tungsten, molybdenum, and vanadium. On the other hand, Tariff Item 68 encompasses all other goods not elsewhere specified. Referring to the Explanatory Notes of the Customs Cooperation Counsel, the Tribunal found that the description under Chapter 82.07 closely aligned with Tariff Item 62, emphasizing the use of tool tips in cutting tools for working metals or hard materials. The Explanatory Notes clarified that tool tips, whether sharpened or not, fall under this category, emphasizing their application in drilling, milling, and other cutting tools.

The Tribunal addressed the appellant's contentions regarding the use of inserts in mining equipment and the argument that their products were not used for cutting metals like traditional tool tips. By referencing the Explanatory Notes, the Tribunal concluded that the inserts manufactured by the appellant qualified as tool tips under Tariff Item 62. The Tribunal also dismissed the appellant's argument that their products, even if considered tool tips, were blanks and should be classified under Tariff Item 68. Referring to a previous Tribunal decision, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the inserts as tool tips under the Central Excise Tariff. The judgment affirmed the lower authorities' decision and rejected the appeal, maintaining the classification under Tariff Item 62.