2000 (5) TMI 380 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of Beeper Alarm Unit, Pilot Lamp Holder Assembly, and Proximity Projector under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the Order-in-Appeal regarding the classification of three items: Beeper Alarm Unit, Pilot Lamp Holder Assembly, and Proximity Projector. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the classification under chapter heading 85.31/85.43, while the Revenue claimed classification under 85.12.

2. The Revenue argued that the items were specifically designed for use in automobiles and supplied as Original Equipment to automobile manufacturers. They contended that since there was a specific sub-heading for signaling equipment in automobiles (85.12), it was incorrect to classify them under a more general sub-heading (85.31/85.43). Therefore, they sought reclassification under 85.12.

3. The Respondent's Advocate raised two main points. Firstly, they argued that the demand for duty was time-barred based on a Supreme Court judgment. Secondly, they contended that the Beeper Alarm Unit and Pilot Lamp Holder, though supplied to automobile manufacturers as OE, could also be used by other users. For the Proximity Projector, they claimed it was a general-purpose equipment not specifically designed for automotive use.

4. The Tribunal considered both submissions and found merit in setting aside the demand for duty due to the limitation period, following the Supreme Court's ruling. Regarding classification, they noted that the Beeper Alarm Unit and Pilot Lamp Holder were primarily designed for automotive use, as evidenced by being supplied as OE to automobile manufacturers. Therefore, they classified these items under 85.12.

5. However, for the Proximity Projector, the Tribunal observed that the original authority had found it to be a general-purpose equipment not specifically designed for motor vehicles. The Revenue failed to provide evidence to refute this finding. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the Proximity Projector under 85.43.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the Order-in-Appeal, quashing the duty demand with retrospective effect. They classified the Beeper Alarm Unit and Pilot Lamp Holder under chapter heading 85.12, while maintaining the classification of the Proximity Projector under 85.43. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.