1997 (5) TMI 273 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of composite items (portfolio with electronic digital clock and calculator, and pen stand with electronic digital clock and calculator).
2. Determination of the essential character of composite items for classification purposes.
3. Applicability of specific headings under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
4. Interpretation of terms such as "machine," "apparatus," "appliance," and "equipment" under the Tariff.
5. Reconsideration of classification by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Composite Items:
The appeal concerns the classification of two composite items: (i) portfolio with electronic digital clock and calculator, and (ii) pen stand with electronic digital clock and calculator. The appellants sought to classify these items under Heading No. 91.05 as "Other Clocks" in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Revenue classified them under Heading No. 84.72 as "Other Office Machines."

2. Essential Character of Composite Items:
The Tribunal examined whether the essential character of the composite items was given by the electronic digital clock or by the portfolio and pen stand. It was determined that the composite items were not clocks as such but different articles whose essential character was given by the portfolio in one case and the pen stand in the other.

3. Applicability of Specific Headings:
The Tribunal discussed that the electronic digital clock, being a specified item in the tariff, is classifiable and dutiable under Heading No. 91.05. However, the composite items, as presented for classification, were not clocks but articles with multi-utility features. The Tribunal ruled out classification under Heading No. 91.05 and Heading No. 84.72, considering the composite nature of the items.

4. Interpretation of Terms:
The Tribunal analyzed the terms "machine," "apparatus," "appliance," and "equipment" under the Tariff. It concluded that the composite items did not fit the definitions of these terms as per the extended meaning in Section Note 5 under Section XVI of the Tariff. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents and definitions to support its interpretation.

5. Reconsideration by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals):
The Tribunal proposed that the classification of the composite items should be reconsidered under relevant headings such as Heading No. 42.01 for portfolios and Heading No. 96.08 for pen-holders. The matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) for fresh consideration, allowing the appellants to present their case and ensuring a proper classification as per law.

Conclusion:
The appeal was disposed of by way of remand. The Tribunal directed the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) to reconsider the classification of the composite items, taking into account the observations made and providing an opportunity for the appellants to present their case. The Commissioner is to pass a speaking appealable order based on a fresh assessment.

← Previous Next →