9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2000 (2) TMI 373 - AT - Central Excise
Issues: Classification of industrial Wet and Dry Vacuum Cleaner under Chapter 85.09 or 84.79.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS, the primary issue revolved around the classification of an industrial Wet and Dry Vacuum Cleaner manufactured by the appellants. The Revenue classified the product under 85.09, while the appellants contended that it should be classified under 84.79 as it was specifically designed for industrial use. The appellants argued that the lower authorities had incorrectly applied Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 85, which pertains to machines commonly used for domestic purposes. They pointed out that the HSN Explanatory notes supported their classification under 84.79 for industrial Vacuum cleaners. The user manual of the product also emphasized its design for industrial cleaning. The Tribunal observed that the product was distinct from domestic Vacuum cleaners and had a strong case for classification under 84.79 based on its industrial design and purpose. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had presented a compelling case for the classification of the industrial Wet and Dry Vacuum Cleaner under 84.79. They highlighted that the product was specifically designed for industrial use and was marketed as such. Drawing a distinction between industrial and domestic Vacuum cleaners, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' arguments. Additionally, the Tribunal referenced Chapter Note 3 (a) of Chapter 85, which supports the classification of machines commonly used for domestic purposes under 85.09. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement and stayed the recovery pending appeal, recognizing the strong merits favoring the appellants. The matter was remanded to the first Appellate Authority for a detailed reconsideration of the case in light of the Tribunal's observations. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to conduct a thorough hearing with the appellants and issue a comprehensive order on the merits of the case.
|
