9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6/94. Adjudicating on a notice issued to the manufacturer, the Asst. Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice. He held that the goods were classifiable not as parts of mechanical appliance under Heading 8424.00 but as tubes and pipes of plastic under Heading 3917.00 and denied the exemption. The manufacturer appealed this order and the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention that the goods were more appropriately classifiable under Heading 8424.00 and allowed the appeal. Hence, this appeal by the Commissioner. 2. We are not able to accept the ground in the appeal that by application of Note 1(g) of Section XVI of the Tariff, the tubes would be parts of general use and hence excluded from classification under Chapter 84. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Tribunal has held that tubes of plastic intended to be used as components of machine are so classifiable as such component. He cites the order of the Supreme Court dismissing the appeal of the Collector of Customs in Bharat Earth Movers against the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the Collector of Customs, Madras held that hoses made of rubber classifiable under Heading 84.23 of the Tariff and the decision of the Tribunal in EPC Irrigation Ltd. Anr. v. CC CE - 2002 (139) E.L.T. 84 = 2001 (47) RLT 369 and that of the Tribunal in Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. CCE 2001 (130) E.L.T. 146 in support. 5. Heading 39.17 of the tariff is for tubes, pipes and hoses and fittings therefor of plastics. Note 8 to Chapter 39 explains that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of tubes and result in end up being classifiable under different headings, for example, one as parts of washing machine and other as parts of pneumatic drill. Apart from the fact that such a classification would be unenforceable, the manufacturer of the tube or pipe may himself not know of the intended use to which the goods that he makes would be put. He may not even be aware of the goods that the buyer of the goods manufactures. He may clear the goods wholesale to a dealer from whom the user of the goods may buy them. 6. Apart from this, we are not able to find anything in the tariff or the explanatory notes to the Harmonised System of Nomenclature on which the tariff is based that would support the view the respondent wishes to take. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal. That finding of facts is not available before us. The decision in Bharat Earth Movers 1989 (42) E.L.T. 62A on a different importation to the same importer refers to another order of the Tribunal and again has no facts. The decision therefore is of no relevance. The decision in EPC Irrigation Ltd. 2002 (139) E.L.T. 84 (T) = 2001 (47) RLT 369 relied on the HSN Explanatory Notes to Heading 84.24 applying the provisions of Note 4 to Section XVI to irrigation system consisting of various components linked together. 8. In Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. CCE - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 146, the Bench of the Tribunal held that plastic hoses which were used as parts of vacuum cleaner were not capable of general use and could only be used as parts of vacuum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
