2002 (2) TMI 714

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d both these under Heading 84.09. On appeal from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the classification that the assessee claimed. Hence this appeal. 2. The departmental representative explains that the crankshaft is in the nature of transmission shaft used to convert the linear motion imparted to the connecting rod by the movement of the cylinder in the engine rod to rotary motion. The connecting rod itself is used, as its name suggest, to connect the piston to the crankshaft. It is therefore separate from and independent of the crankshaft. Heading 84.83 is specifically for transmission shafts and cranks and other goods mentioned therein and will not cover connecting rod. Connecting rod is specifically mentioned in Heading 84 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tory Notes of the Harmonised System of Nomenclature the relevant headings which are identically word as the heading in the tariff specified connecting rod classified under Heading 84.09 which is for parts of goods of Heading 84.07 or 84.08. It specifies that this heading excludes engine crankshaft which are specifically included in Heading 84.63. It is to be noted that the Explanatory Notes to Heading 84.83 themselves recognise the fact that crank and crankshaft are either made from one piece or from several parts. What is to be seen is whether in the facts of this particular case a departure from this principle is justified. 5. The basis for the respondent s claim is that since the crankshaft is composed of two pieces called webs and hel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... acture of machine tools required for making crankshaft. If his claim to be an expert is to be accepted, the manufacturer of loom would be a textile expert and a manufacturer of goods in chemical manufacture, an expert chemist. We therefore decline to accept this opinion. 6. The argument somewhat feebly made that the crankcase is a part of the crankshaft because it houses the crankshaft cannot be accepted. A housing for goods does not become the parts of the goods that they house. The crankcase is completely different from a crankshaft. This appears to be correctly classifiable under parts of engine under Heading 84.09. The classification that has been determined by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be upheld. The classification that the A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X