Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1998 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1998 (3) TMI 429 - AT - Central Excise
Issues involved:
1. Exemption of steel chains from duty under Notification No. 217/86 2. Classification of steel racks under Heading 73.08 or 94.03 3. Classification of steel ladder under Heading 7308.90 or 7326.90 Analysis: 1. Exemption of Steel Chains: The appellant argued that steel chains used in the pickling process are essential for cleaning M.S. components and should be exempt under Notification No. 217/86. They cited precedents where similar items were granted exemption. The Tribunal agreed, stating that steel chains, not being apparatus or equipment, are integral to the manufacturing process and qualify for the exemption. The Tribunal emphasized that inputs need not form part of the finished product to be eligible for the exemption. 2. Classification of Steel Ladder: The appellant contended that steel ladders, although fixed to transmission towers, should be classified under Heading 73.08 as parts of structures, not under Heading 7326.90. The Tribunal disagreed, ruling that steel ladders are standalone goods made of iron and steel, correctly classified under Heading 7326.90 and not as part of structures. 3. Classification of Steel Racks: Regarding steel racks, the appellant argued they should not be classified as furniture as per the HSN definition, as they are not used in private dwellings or similar places. The Tribunal agreed that steel racks do not fit the definition of furniture but also disagreed with the classification under Heading 73.08 or 94.03. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for proper classification, acknowledging that the steel racks do not fall under the claimed headings. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's contentions regarding steel chains and steel ladders, granting the exemption and confirming the classification, respectively. However, the classification of steel racks was remanded for further assessment, as they did not fit the headings claimed by the appellant or the Department. The appeal was allowed in part, and the matter was disposed of accordingly.
|