1999 (10) TMI 196 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of products as parts of scooters or castings.

Analysis:
The issue in these appeals revolves around the classification of certain products claimed by the Department to be parts of scooters, while the appellants argue that they are castings. The Collector (Appeals) rejected the appellants' submissions, holding that the goods manufactured by them have acquired the essential characteristic as identifiable parts of various machines and should be classified as such. The appellants contended that their products are commercially understood as castings and should be classified under Chapter sub-heading 7616.90. The Collector (Appeals) found that the products manufactured by the appellants are semi-finished articles with the essential characteristics of finished machine parts, classifiable under their respective chapters. The appellants argued that the castings they manufactured were not directly supplied as machinery parts, but further processes were carried out by intermediaries to turn them into machinery parts.

In their defense, the appellants explained that the products were castings only and not identifiable scooter parts or parts of other machinery. They relied on expert certificates certifying their products as castings and argued that all castings are ultimately used as components of machinery. The appellants highlighted that the castings become machinery parts only after further processes carried out by intermediaries, and the items were not commercially understood as machinery parts. They referred to previous tribunal decisions and fundamental tests for determining the character of a product, emphasizing that subsequent machining was a factor for not treating the goods as parts of machinery. The appellants also cited recent tribunal decisions where similar appeals were allowed, classifying the castings under specific tariff headings.

After considering the submissions, the Tribunal noted that similar questions had been addressed in the appellants' previous case, where the tribunal had allowed the appeal against the classification of castings as parts of machinery. The Tribunal referred to earlier decisions accepted by the CBEC, supporting the appellants' arguments. Given the precedent set in the appellants' previous case, the Tribunal was inclined to allow the present appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and classifying the products as castings rather than parts of machinery.