1996 (10) TMI 267 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of coil cords, plug wire/cords, straight/line/connection/rosettee cord, and gemini cord under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

In this appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the issue revolved around the classification of various products, including coil cords, plug wire/cords, straight/line/connection/rosettee cord, and gemini cord under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant, M/s. Finolex Coil Cord (P) Ltd., initially classified the products under Heading No. 85.48, while the Assistant Collector classified them under Heading No. 85.44. The Collector (Appeals), Bombay upheld the classification under Heading 85.44. The appellant contested this classification, arguing that the products should be classified under Heading 85.48. The appellant's representative reiterated their submissions made before the Collector (Appeals), while the JDR for the respondents contended that the goods in question were correctly classifiable under Heading No. 85.44 as cables, not electrical goods.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal examined the description of the goods, which included coil cords, plug wire/cord, straight/line/connection/rosette cord, and gemini cord. The initial classification by the appellant under Heading No. 84.48 was for "Electrical part of machinery or apparatus not specified elsewhere." However, the department classified the products under Heading No. 85.44, which covered insulated wires, cables, and other electric conductors. The Tribunal noted that Heading No. 85.48 encompassed electrical parts of machinery as a residuary entry, applicable only when the goods were not classifiable under any specific heading. It was determined that cords and wires did not qualify as electrical parts of the apparatus in common parlance, such as telephone apparatus.

The Tribunal found that the Tariff Entry under Heading 85.44 sufficiently covered the goods in question, as observed by the Collector (Appeals). The Collector had noted that the products fit the description under Heading 85.44, which was generally recognized in common trade parlance. The appellant failed to provide material to dispute these factual findings. Additionally, the appellant's argument regarding the classification of tinsel conductors was dismissed, as the focus was on the final product, i.e., cords made from the conductors. Considering all relevant factors, the Tribunal affirmed the classification decided by the Collector (Appeals) as correct, concluding that the appeal lacked merit and was therefore rejected.