2000 (3) TMI 376 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of roller bracket assembly under Heading 86.07 or 85.04 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant argued that the roller assembly should be classified under Heading 85.04 based on previous approvals by the Department and similar classifications by other assesses. They contended that the assembly is designed specifically for transformers, fixed to them, and not used for transportation of goods or persons. They invoked Note 2(b) to Section XVI of the Tariff, stating that the goods, suitable only as part of a transformer, should be classified with transformers under Heading 85.04. They also cited relevant case laws to support their classification argument.

2. The Department countered, asserting that Heading 86.07 applies to parts of carriage assembly moving on rails, which aligns with the basic function of the roller assembly for facilitating the movement of transformers. They argued that as the assembly is not an integral part of the transformer and primarily serves for material carriage, it should be classified under Heading 86.07. Moreover, they highlighted that the classification list effective from 1-3-1993 was not approved by the proper officer, making the earlier approvals irrelevant.

3. The Tribunal analyzed both positions and noted that the roller assembly's purpose is solely to aid in moving transformers, indicating it is not a part of the transformer itself. Referring to Note 2 to Section XVI of the Tariff, the Tribunal emphasized that for a product to be classified as a part of a machine, it must be demonstrated that it is part of a machine classifiable under Chapter 84 or 85. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the classification under Heading 86.07, as determined by the Assistant Commissioner, rejecting the appellant's arguments. They also dismissed the claim of lack of proper notice, as the appellant was made aware during the hearing about the proposed classification under Heading 86.07. The Tribunal concluded that the ratio of a specific case was inapplicable due to the unapproved classification list from 1-3-1993, leading to the rejection of all three appeals filed by the appellant.