1997 (12) TMI 330 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Heading 4408.90 or Heading 8452.00

In this case, the issue revolved around the correct classification of goods described as "sewing machine furniture" under the Customs Tariff Act. The Assistant Collector initially classified the goods as block boards under Heading 4408.90, while the Collector (Appeals) upheld this classification, stating that the item was not specially designed to be considered part of a sewing machine. The main contention was whether the goods should be classified under Heading 4408.90 as block boards or under Heading 8452.00 as bases specially designed for sewing machines.

Detailed Analysis:

The Appellate Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties. The Appellant, represented by Shri V. Sridharan, contended that the goods in question were specially designed for sewing machines, as evidenced by the manufacturing process. He highlighted that the block board had a specific design with a gap in the middle, intended for the fitment of a sewing machine. This design feature made the goods unsuitable for general marketability as block boards and exclusively used by sewing machine manufacturers. The Appellant argued that since Heading 8452 covered bases specially designed for sewing machines, this classification was appropriate.

On the other hand, the Respondent, represented by Shri S. Kannan, argued that based on the manufacturing process, the goods qualified as block boards under Chapter 44 of the Customs Tariff Act.

The Tribunal examined the process of manufacture provided to the Assistant Collector, which detailed the specific design and construction of the goods. The manufacturing process involved creating a frame with a space specifically left unfilled for the sewing machine, followed by the compression of veneers and finishing. The Tribunal noted that even though the end-user could cut open the space for fitting the machine, the fact that a specific area was intentionally left unfilled indicated the goods were manufactured for a particular use, i.e., as sewing machine bases.

The Tribunal emphasized that the design of the goods, with a gap in the middle and slots on the sides, distinguished them from ordinary block boards. Even if the middle portion was not cut open by the manufacturer, the goods were not suitable for purposes other than as sewing machine bases. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the goods did not merit classification under Heading 44 as block boards but should be considered parts of sewing machines under Heading 8452. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the lower orders, allowed the appeal, and directed any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the classification of goods based on their specific design and intended use, highlighting the importance of the manufacturing process and the distinctive features of the goods in question.