1996 (9) TMI 329 - AT - Central Excise

Issues: Classification of blower for car air conditioning under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 33

Analysis:
1. Issue: Whether the blower for car air conditioning is classifiable as an electric fan under Item No. 33 of the Central Excise Tariff.

- The appellant, M/s. Premier Automobiles Ltd., filed an appeal regarding the classification of the blower for car air conditioning under Item No. 33 of the Tariff.
- The dispute arose when the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay held that the blower was classifiable under Item No. 33(3) and the refund granted was recoverable.
- The appellant argued that the blower was not commercially known as an electric fan and was specifically designed to work only with the air conditioner.

2. Analysis:

- The appellant's advocate argued that the blower should not be classified as an electric fan based on commercial understanding and common parlance.
- The advocate referred to relevant legal precedents, including decisions of the Bombay High Court and Tribunal cases, to support the argument that blowers used in air conditioners may not be classified as electric fans.
- The Respondent's representative contended that the blower for car air conditioning could function independently and should be considered an electric fan under Item No. 33(3).

3. Analysis:

- The Tribunal considered the nature of the blower, described as a combination of an electric motor with an impeller through a V-Belt, specifically manufactured for the air conditioning unit.
- It was noted that there was no evidence to show that the blowers were marketed as electric fans under Item No. 33.
- The Tribunal emphasized that for excise classification, commercial understanding was crucial, and not every device circulating air could be classified as an electric fan under the Tariff.

4. Analysis:

- The Assistant Collector's order highlighted that the blower did not assume the shape of an electric fan before its use in air conditioners.
- The Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), focused on the blower's function of blowing air and having a separate switch to operate, but did not consider commercial understanding or common parlance.
- The Tribunal concluded that the goods in question could not be classified as electric fans solely based on their ability to circulate air.

5. Analysis:

- The appellant relied on legal precedents where similar components used in air conditioners were not treated as electric fans for excise classification.
- The Tribunal's decisions in previous cases supported the argument that components like blowers or fans inside air conditioners were not dutiable under Item No. 33(3) of the Tariff.

6. Analysis:

- The Respondent argued that the legal precedents referred to room air conditioners, and the classification might not apply to car air conditioners.
- The Tribunal considered the expression "electric fans" under Item No. 33 and emphasized that commercial understanding was crucial in determining classification.
- It was noted that the blower in question was not an electric fan as commonly understood for the purpose of Item No. 33 of the Tariff.

7. Analysis:

- After considering all relevant factors, the Tribunal set aside the order-in-appeal and allowed the appeal of M/s. Premier Automobiles Ltd.
- The judgment concluded that the blower for car air conditioning was not classifiable as an electric fan under Item No. 33 of the Central Excise Tariff.

← Previous Next →