1998 (7) TMI 259 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of recoverable Bolts and Roof Bolts under CSH 7308.90 as parts of structural items versus classification under 7318.90.
The relevance of threading in classification.
Consideration of use and function in classification.
Application of Section Note 2 of Section XV of CETA in classification.
Provisional assessment procedure and retrospective classification change.

Analysis:
The appeal concerned the classification of recoverable Bolts and Roof Bolts under CSH 7308.90 as parts of structural items, as opposed to the classification under 7318.90. The appellants argued that the presence of threading should not be the sole criterion for classification and that the use of the product should also be considered. They cited a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing classification based on identity and commercial trade parlance.

The Commissioner classified the products under 7318.10 due to the presence of the word 'bolt' in the product name and the threading, ignoring their actual use. The appellants contended that classification should be based on use and function, not just the name. They also argued against retrospective classification change without following the provisional assessment procedure.

The Tribunal noted that classification criteria go beyond just the name, considering factors like nature, composition, and use. The absence of evidence supporting the appellants' claim that the products were not of general use led to their main contention being unsubstantiated. The heading 7308.90 did not cover bolts specifically, but rather structural materials, and no evidence showed the items were considered as parts of such structures.

The Commissioner relied on Section Note 2 of Section XV in classification, emphasizing that the department's failure to use provisional assessment did not impact the classification issue. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, as the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their classification argument, while the Commissioner's classification was deemed appropriate based on the available information and legal provisions.