1995 (9) TMI 160 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of water cooler casing as a cabinet for duty purposes under Notification No. 87/82.
2. Interpretation of the term "cabinet" in the context of Central Excise Tariff Act and relevant notifications.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the department against an order-in-appeal regarding the classification of water cooler casings as cabinets under Notification No. 87/82. The department alleged that the respondents manufactured cabinets for water coolers without paying duty. The respondents argued that the casings were not cabinets but rectangular casings housing the water cooler assembly. The Asstt. Collector considered the casings as cabinets, while the Collector (Appeals) disagreed, citing ISI specifications and previous tribunal decisions. The Collector (Appeals) held that the casings were not cabinets, relying on trade parlance and technical specifications for refrigerators.

2. The revenue justified treating the casings as cabinets, claiming similarity in purpose between refrigerator cabinets and water cooler casings. On the other hand, the Sr. Advocate for the respondents argued that the department failed to provide evidence to classify the casings as cabinets under Notification No. 80/62. He emphasized that the term "cabinet" was not defined, placing the burden of proof on the department. The advocate referenced the Asstt. Collector's finding that the casings were not known as cabinets in trade parlance and highlighted the absence of evidence from the department to support their claim.

3. The Tribunal examined Notification No. 80/62, which exempts refrigerator parts from duty, including cabinets. The term "cabinet" was not explicitly defined in the notification or tariff. The Tribunal agreed with the Collector (Appeals) that the department failed to provide sufficient evidence to classify the water cooler casings as cabinets. As the department did not present evidence and the casings were not known as cabinets in trade, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Collector (Appeals) decision.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the dispute over the classification of water cooler casings as cabinets for duty purposes, emphasizing the burden of proof on the department and the reliance on trade parlance and technical specifications in determining the classification.