1997 (5) TMI 202 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of parts/components of machinery under Central Excise Tariff.

The judgment involves two appeals filed by M/s. Buckau Wolf India Ltd. against orders-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. In the first appeal, the issue pertains to the classification of parts/components of machinery under Heading No. 84.28 and Heading No. 84.29 of the Central Excise Tariff, which were classified under Heading No. 84.31 by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pune. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld this classification. In the second appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the grounds of lack of pleadings, as it was against a letter mentioning a prior decision by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The appellants sought a decision on merits in both appeals.

In the first appeal, the respondent argued that the parts in question, meant for machinery classified under Heading No. 84.28 and Heading No. 84.29, fell under Heading No. 84.31 as per the Tariff. The Tribunal noted that the Tariff description under Heading No. 84.31 specified that parts suitable for use with machinery classified under Heading No. 84.28 and Heading No. 84.29 would be classified under Heading No. 84.31. The appellants referred to Section Note 4 under Section XVI of the Tariff, but the Tribunal clarified that this note applied when classifying a complete machine, not individual parts.

The Tribunal further explained that for the classification of parts, Section Note 2 of Section XVI was relevant, stating that parts falling under Chapter 84 or Chapter 85 were to be classified in their respective headings. Given the specificity of Heading No. 84.31 for parts suitable for use with machinery under Heading Nos. 84.25 to 84.30, the Tribunal upheld the classification under Heading No. 84.31 and rejected the appeal against the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) decision.

In the second appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) rejected the appeal due to insufficient facts and lack of submission of the prior order-in-original by the appellants. The appellants claimed that the issue was the same as in the first appeal, regarding the classification of parts of material handling equipment. The Tribunal reiterated that the parts of machinery classified under Heading No. 84.28 and Heading No. 84.29 were correctly classified under Heading No. 84.31. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in both appeals and rejected them based on the decisions of the lower authorities.