2000 (7) TMI 370 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of Notification No. 73/89-C.E. to the product "Weather Maker" - Classification as evaporative type of cooler or convector - Interpretation of Heading No. 84.79 of the Central Excise Tariff - Applicability of exemption Notification No. 73/89-C.E., dated 1-3-1989 (as amended) - Consideration of multiple functions of the product.

Analysis:
The appeal concerned the admissibility of Notification No. 73/89-C.E. to the product "Weather Maker," specifically whether it should be classified as an evaporative type of cooler or a convector. The Asstt. Collector and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) classified the product as an evaporative cooler, emphasizing its primary function of blowing cool air despite having an additional feature of blowing hot air. The appellant argued that the product had three distinct functions - providing fresh air, acting as an evaporative cooler, and functioning as a heat convector, thus not solely a cooler. However, the respondent contended that the additional function did not alter the product's classification as an evaporative cooler.

The Tribunal examined the relevant notifications, including Notification No. 73/89-C.E. and its subsequent amendments, which provided concessional rates of central excise duty for specific categories of goods. The appellant had classified the "Weather Maker" under sub-heading No. 8479.00, which was not disputed by the Department. The Tribunal noted that the product was primarily intended to function as an evaporative cooler with a blower for both cool and warm air, with cooling being its main purpose, not marketed as a hot air blower.

Considering Chapter Note 7 of Chapter 84, which treats machines with multiple functions as having their principal purpose as the sole purpose for classification, the Tribunal concluded that the principal purpose of the "Weather Maker" was as an evaporative cooler. The Tribunal emphasized that classifying the product as other than an evaporative cooler would lead to a new classification dispute, which was not the case here. Referring to the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System (HSN), the Tribunal highlighted criteria for machines with individual functions, which the "Weather Maker" did not meet due to its dual cooling and heating functions.

The Tribunal distinguished the present case from a Supreme Court decision regarding classification, emphasizing that the "Weather Maker" should be classified as an evaporative cooler based on the undisputed classification under Heading No. 84.79. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the "Weather Maker" as an evaporative type of cooler, rejecting the appeal and confirming the decision of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).