2017 (12) TMI 87 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - plastic tanks - case of Department is that the plastic tanks are reservoir tanks and similar container is classifiable under 3925 1000 - claim of appellant is that these are Agriculture Spraying Unit/ Slurry units, blowers classifiable under 8424 9000 as parts of mechanical appliances of kind used in agriculture or horti-culture - whether the goods classifiable under CTH 3925 1000 or under CTH 8424 9000? - Held that - it is found that the tank manufactured by the appellant is specifically made for one M/s. Boraste Agro Implements and Allied Industry which are involved in the business of agricultural equipment. A tank manufactured by the appellant is having various fitments and it has a specific shape which is used for making spraying unit which has a specific use in the agriculture purpose - As per the photographs referred by the ld. Counsel, on careful perusal of the same, we find that the tank is a specialised attachment and shape and it clearly shows that it is used for spraying the material in the agricultural field. Therefore it is clear that the tank manufactured by the appellant is not for general use of storage of water. Though the plastic tank is otherwise classifiable under Chapter 3925 but in the present case it is specially designed tank and admittedly used as part of spraying system for agriculture and it merits classification under 8424. - identical issue decided in the case of Elgi Ultra Appliances 1999 (7) TMI 422 - CEGAT, CHENNAI , where it was held that the goods in question are classifiable under heading 8424.00 and entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 46/94. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Classification of plastic tanks manufactured for agricultural use under Chapter 3925 1000 or 8424 9000.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of Plastic Tanks
The central issue in this case pertains to the classification of plastic tanks manufactured for agricultural purposes. The appellant argues that the tanks, used for spraying pesticides in agriculture, should be classified under chapter heading 8424 9000 as parts of mechanical appliances used in agriculture. The appellant's counsel highlights that the tanks are specifically designed for agricultural use, with attachments for spraying, making them distinct from general water storage tanks classified under 3925 1000. The appellant relies on various judgments to support the classification based on end-use criteria, emphasizing the specialized nature of the tanks for agricultural spraying.

Issue 2: Arguments of the Parties
The appellant's counsel contends that the tanks, despite being plastic, are tailored for agricultural spraying and should be classified accordingly. On the other hand, the revenue representative asserts that the appellant previously classified the tanks under 3925 1000 as builders ware of plastic, indicating consistency in classification. The revenue's stance is that being plastic tanks, they should fall under the classification of 3925 1000, aligning with the general classification for plastic products.

Issue 3: Tribunal's Decision
Upon careful consideration of both arguments, the Tribunal finds that the tanks, though generally falling under 3925 1000, are specifically designed for agricultural spraying purposes. The tanks exhibit unique features and attachments tailored for agricultural use, as evidenced by photographs presented. Drawing parallels to previous judgments involving plastic pipes used for irrigation systems, the Tribunal concludes that the tanks should be classified under 8424 9000 due to their specialized agricultural function. The Tribunal emphasizes the importance of end-use criteria in classification, aligning with the specific nature of the tanks for agricultural spraying.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal rules in favor of the appellant, classifying the plastic tanks manufactured for agricultural spraying under chapter heading 8424 9000. The decision underscores the significance of end-use criteria and specific design features in determining the appropriate classification of goods, aligning with the specialized nature of the tanks for agricultural purposes. The judgment sets a precedent based on previous rulings regarding the classification of specialized plastic products used in specific applications, emphasizing the importance of considering the intended use of the goods in classification disputes.