1999 (8) TMI 270 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff.
2. Applicability of Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules.
3. Consideration of goods as complete machines or parts thereof.
4. Examination of the state of goods at the time of clearance.
5. Relevance of bought-out items in determining classification.
6. Impact of previous Tribunal decisions on the current case.

Summary:

Classification of Goods under Central Excise Tariff:
The appellant manufactures metal rolling mills and galvanising lines. Rolling mills were classified under Heading 8455.00, and galvanising lines under Heading 8479.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. The dispute arose when the appellant cleared these goods under sub-heading 10 at a lower duty rate, while the Department contended that they were parts liable to a higher duty rate under sub-heading 90.

Applicability of Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules:
The appellant argued that Rule 2(a) of the rules for the interpretation of the tariff should apply, which states that any reference in a heading to an article includes that article in unfinished or disassembled form. The Department countered that Rule 2(a) only applies to goods complete or finished removed unassembled or disassembled and does not apply to goods that have not yet acquired the character of complete or finished goods.

Consideration of Goods as Complete Machines or Parts Thereof:
The Tribunal noted that the tariff heading has two sub-headings: one for parts and another for goods other than parts. It was emphasized that for goods to be classified under sub-heading 10, they must consist of the complete machine at the time of clearance. The Tribunal concluded that the goods were classifiable as rolling mills/galvanising lines and not as parts thereof.

Examination of the State of Goods at the Time of Clearance:
The Departmental Representative argued that the condition of the article at the time of clearance from the factory is a material factor for deciding the tariff entry. The Tribunal, however, found this reliance misplaced, noting that the current tariff's interpretative rules, especially those relating to classification of unassembled or disassembled goods, are significant.

Relevance of Bought-Out Items in Determining Classification:
The appellant stated that approximately 70% of the parts were manufactured in their factory, and 30% were bought out from the market. The Tribunal found that the bought-out items were used in the manufacture of the final products as evidenced by Modvat documents, rejecting the Department's contention that no evidence was provided.

Impact of Previous Tribunal Decisions on the Current Case:
The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, such as Shrike Construction Equipments Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Pune and Vishwa Industrial Co. (P). Ltd v. C.C.E., which concluded that goods cleared unassembled or disassembled were classified as complete machines. These decisions supported the appellant's stance.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order. It was held that the goods were classifiable as rolling mills/galvanising lines and not as parts thereof. The Tribunal emphasized that the Interpretative Rules and Section notes under Chapter XVI should be applied, and the Department's arguments were not accepted.