2000 (6) TMI 337 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
Classification of side and centre connections for impedance bond under heading 85.30 or 85.44 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.

Analysis:
The appeal involved the classification of side and centre connections for impedance bond under heading 85.30 or 85.44 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The appellant, M/s. Maharashtra Wire Indus., claimed classification under heading 85.30, arguing that the product was solely used for side connection to the impedance bond in railway electric signalling and was not an electric insulated conductor. The appellant emphasized that the product conveyed sensitivity, not electrical current, and should be classified under heading 85.30 as an integral part of the signalling system. Additionally, the appellant mentioned availing exemption under notification No. 175/86, which was not considered by the lower authorities.

In response, the Collector (Appeals) had classified the product under heading 85.44, stating that it acted as an electrical conductor conducting sensitivity through electricity. The Collector (Appeals) referred to the Explanatory Note of HSN below heading 85.44, which covers insulated wires and cables, and argued that the product fell under this category. The Collector (Appeals) also cited a previous decision to support this classification and contended that the product did not qualify for the exemption under notification No. 175/86.

After considering both arguments, the Tribunal upheld the classification under heading 85.44 for the product. The Tribunal agreed with the Collector (Appeals) that the product, made of galvanized wire insulated with PVC sleeves and welded lugs, functioned as an electrical conductor conducting sensitivity through electricity. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere use of the product for side connection to the impedance bond in railway electric signalling did not make it a part of electrical signalling equipment. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal supported the classification under heading 85.44 and remanded the matter to the Asstt. Commissioner to examine the availability of exemption under notification No. 175/86 for the appellants. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.