1998 (9) TMI 185 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Correct classification of the product "Pyroclean 17" - whether as a cleaning preparation or degreasing chemical.
2. Interpretation of Central Excise Tariff (CET) sub-headings 3402.90 and 3823.00.
3. Determination of the main function of the product based on chemical composition and usage.
4. Application of exclusion clause (c) regarding surface active agents in the classification.

Issue 1: Correct Classification of the Product:
The case involved determining the appropriate classification of the product "Pyroclean 17" manufactured by the appellants. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) classified it as a "cleaning preparation" under CET sub-heading 3402.90, while the appellants claimed it should be classified as "degreasing chemicals-powder chemicals (alkaline cleaners)" under CET sub-heading 3823.00. The product was described as a heavy-duty alkaline cleaner used for cleaning iron and steel surfaces in preparation for further industrial applications.

Issue 2: Interpretation of CET Sub-Headings:
The appellants argued that their product should be classified under sub-heading 3823.00, which covers residual products of the chemical industry not elsewhere specified. However, the tribunal found that the product fell under sub-heading 3402.90, which encompasses all cleaning preparations regardless of their strength or purpose, contrary to the appellants' claim that it only applied to light domestic cleaners.

Issue 3: Determination of Main Function:
The tribunal analyzed the chemical composition and usage of the product to ascertain its main function. Test results indicated that the product consisted of alkalies, phosphates, and silicates, confirming its nature as a cleaning preparation. The tribunal rejected the appellants' argument that the product's main function was anti-rust treatment, as this claim lacked substantiation from the product literature or evidence on record.

Issue 4: Application of Exclusion Clause (c):
The appellants contended that their product should be excluded from the classification as it contained surface active agents where the surface active function was subsidiary to the main purpose. However, the tribunal dismissed this argument, noting that the main function of the product was indeed surface cleaning, as evident from the product literature and the appellants' own claims. Therefore, the exclusion clause was deemed inapplicable.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the classification of the product "Pyroclean 17" as a cleaning preparation under CET sub-heading 3402.90, rejecting the appellants' appeal and confirming the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) based on the product's chemical composition, main function, and the relevant tariff sub-headings.