1997 (2) TMI 276 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of Metallic Ring Travellers, Metallic Rings, and Nylon Travellers under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

In the appeal filed by M/s. BRT Ltd., Thane, the dispute revolves around the classification of Metallic Ring Travellers, Metallic Rings, and Nylon Travellers. The appellants classified these products under specific sub-headings of the Tariff, while the Revenue classified them all under a different heading. The main contention raised by the advocate for the appellants was that the goods should be classified under a separate heading for parts and accessories suitable for use with specific machines, rather than the heading chosen by the Revenue. The advocate sought to present additional evidence to support this argument and requested a remand for further examination.

Upon review, it was noted that the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) included Ring Travellers in the parts and accessories classifiable under a specific heading. The Revenue's classification was challenged, with the argument that the goods in question were specifically designed for the spinning frame and should not be classified as other articles of iron, steel, or plastic. The Revenue expressed willingness to consider a remand for a limited extent of classification between two specific headings of the Tariff.

The Tribunal carefully analyzed the relevant Tariff headings, distinguishing between machines for textile fibers and auxiliary machinery for use with specific machines. Samples of the products were examined, and technical literature was referenced to understand the nature of the goods. It was determined that the classification under other articles of iron, steel, or plastic was not appropriate as the goods were specifically made for ring spinning, a distinct spinning system.

Based on the Section Notes of the Tariff, which dictate the classification of parts suitable for specific machines, the Tribunal concluded that the products in question should be classified under a particular heading for parts and accessories, rather than the heading initially chosen by the Revenue. The classification under the correct heading was deemed necessary in light of the definition of 'Machine' under Section Note 5 of Section XVI.

The advocate for the appellants argued that the goods should be considered accessories rather than parts and requested the opportunity to present additional evidence. As the classification under the relevant heading was not previously considered by lower authorities, the matter was remanded for de novo consideration by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. The Tribunal ordered a reevaluation of the classification in line with their observations, ensuring due process and a speaking order in accordance with the law. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand, directing further examination by the lower authority.