1995 (3) TMI 226 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods for Customs Duty under Heading 85.45/48 of the First Schedule to the CTA, 1975 and CVD under Item 68 of the CET.
2. Correct assessability of Saw Blades under Heading 82.01/04 of CTA, 1975.
3. Classification of goods under Heading 84.45/48 under Customs Tariff and Heading 51A(iii) of the Central Excise Tariff for CVD.

Analysis:
1. The Collector (Appeals) classified "Diamond Impregnated Saws" under Heading 85.45/48 of the CTA, 1975 for Customs Duty but rejected the classification under CVD under Item 68 of the CET. The Asstt. Collector upheld the original assessment under Heading 82.01/04, stating it covers blades for machine saws with precious stones on a base metal support. The Tribunal noted both parties' grievances and analyzed the classification under various headings to resolve the issue.

2. The Revenue argued that Saw Blades are correctly assessable under Heading 82.01/04 of CTA, 1975, as it covers non-mechanical saws and blades for hand or machine saws. The Explanatory Notes of Chapter 82.02 supported this classification, including blades for hand and machine saws. The Tribunal considered these arguments in conjunction with the classification under Heading 85.45/48 and Heading 51A(iii) of the CET.

3. In the Cross Appeal, the assessee contended that the goods were rightly classified under Heading 84.45/48 for Customs Duty but should have been under Heading 51A(iii) of the CET for CVD. They argued that stone working machines fall under Heading 84.46, distinguishing them from hand tools under Heading 82.04. The Tribunal examined the classification under Chapter 51A(iv) of the CET, previous rulings, and the specific descriptions of the goods to determine the correct classification for CVD.

4. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties, including the classification of stone cutting machines as machine tools under Heading 51A(iv) of the CET. They referenced Chapter Note I of Section XVI and previous rulings to support the classification under Heading 82.01/04 for Customs Duty. The Tribunal emphasized the specificity of the classification under Chapter 82 compared to the general classification under Heading 84.45/48, leading to the allowance of the Department's appeal.

5. The ld. Consultant argued for the classification under Heading 51A(iv) of the CET for CVD and Chapter 82 for Customs Duty, citing previous Tribunal decisions and BTN 1118. They emphasized the weight and nature of the sawing machines to support the classification under Heading 84.45/48. The Tribunal reviewed these arguments in light of previous judgments and the specific characteristics of the goods to make a final determination.

6. After careful consideration of all submissions and previous judgments, the Tribunal upheld the classification under Heading 82.01/04 for Customs Duty, following the specificity of the classification for blades for hand or machine saws. They rejected the claim for classification under Heading 68 of the CET for CVD, aligning with the previous ruling on Gang Saw Blades. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's claim for classification under Chapter 84, ultimately allowing the Department's appeal in the specified terms.