9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uipment . This Rule does not resolve the issue in favour of either side. Rule 3(b) deals with composite articles and hence is irrelevant to this case. Rule 3(c) states that if there are two or more equally valid classification, the last of such headings shall prevail. Rules 4 and 5 are not relevant to this case. None of the Rules of Interpretation satisfactorily resolve the dispute at hand. While the Central Excise Tariff has only Rules of Interpretation, the Harmonized System of Nomenclature based on which the Tariff is drafted, also has detailed explanatory notes explaining the scope of each heading - The Harmonised System of Nomenclature explains that 8419 includes not only autoclaves for industrial purposes but also those used for installation and operation theatres, etc. - the four goods manufactured by the appellant are classifiable under 8419 as asserted by the Revenue and are chargeable to appropriate duty. Therefore, on merits, the contention of the Revenue should be accepted. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The allegation of suppression of facts by the appellant in the show cause notice is completely unfounded. The other elements such as fraud, collusi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and discharged duty @ 4% for the period August 2002 to February 2003 and 8% for the period March 2003 to March 2007 by availing benefit of Notification No.10/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 (Sl. No. 43) and Notification No. 10/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003 (Sl. No. 43) respectively. Audit officers felt that the above goods do not qualify as medical equipment and should be classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Heading 8419.10 (up to February, 2005) and 8419.2010 (from March, 2005). Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to re-classify the above four goods and assess them to duty @ 16% ad valorem as applicable. It was also alleged in the show cause notice that the assessee had suppressed the fact of manufacture and clearance of these products from the Department with an intention to evade payment of Central Excise duty. Accordingly, the differential duty was demanded invoking the extended period of limitation for the period August 2002 to March 2007 by the show cause notice dated 30 August, 2007 and invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A. 3. Interest was also demanded at the appropriate rate under Section 11AB. It was also pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mperature such as heating, cooking of temperature such as heating, cooking, roasting, distilling, rectifying, sterilising, pasteurising, steaming, drying, evaporating, vaporising, condensing, or cooling, other than machinery or plant of a kind used for domestic purposes; instantaneous or storage water heaters, non-electric. 9018 Instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences, including scientigraphic apparatus, other electro medical apparatus and sight testing instruments. 8. According to the appellant 8419 covers machinery, plant or laboratory equipments and not medical equipment. Goods should be classified according to the common parlance understanding and the equipment which it had manufactured was used in dental establishments and, therefore must be classified under CETH 9018. Secondly, as per Section note 1(m) of Section XVI of Central Excise Tariff, articles under Chapter 90 are excluded from the Section XVI, under which Chapter 84 and Chapter 85 fall. For this reason also, the Autoclave equipment and sterilization equipment manufactured by them for use in dental establishments should be covered under 9018. The third argument ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ISI Glossary, which has a different purpose, cannot, in case of a conflict, override the clear indication of the meaning of an identical expression in the same context in the HSN. In the HSN, block board is included within the meaning of the expression similar laminated wood in the same context of classification of block board. Since the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 is enacted on the basis and pattern of the HSN, the same expression used in the Act must, as far as practicable, be construed to have the meaning which is expressly given to it in the HSN when there is no indication in the Indian Tariff of a different intention. 11. Learned Departmental Representative has referred to the Harmonised System of Nomenclature in which heading 84.19 is shown to specifically cover sterilizer used for medical, surgical or laboratory sterilizing. The relevant entries are as under: 8419 Machinery, plant or laboratory equipment whether or not electrically heated (excluding furnaces, ovens and other equipment of heading 8514), for the treatment of materials by a process involving a change of temperature such as heating, cooking of temperature such as heating, cooking, roasting, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the entry which specifically covers sterilizers including medical, surgical sterilizer and Autoclaves such as ones manufactured by the appellant. On the other hand, Heading 9018 deals with instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences, including scientigraphic apparatus, and other electro medical apparatus and sight testing instrument. The Autoclaves in question are not medical equipment but are sterilizing equipment which are being used by and designed for dentists. Merely because they are being used by dentists they do not become medical equipment. Even if there is any ambiguity, notes of Harmonised System of Nomenclature clarifies that the Autoclaves fall under 8419. 14. After considering the arguments on both sides, we find that the Autoclave, Glass Bead Sterilizer, Steam Clave and Hot Air Sterilizer are not medical equipment but are used for sterilizing medical/dental equipment. The question which arises is whether such goods should be classified under medical equipment or sterilizers under 8419. The Central Excise Tariff is framed on the lines of the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN). It classifies all goods into Sections, chapt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. However, when two or more headings each refer to part only of the materials or substances contained in mixed or composite goods or to part only of the items in a set put up for retail sale, those headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to those goods, even if one of them gives a more complete or precise description of the goods. (b) mixtures, composite goods consisting of different materials or made up of different components, and goods put up in sets for retail sale, which cannot be classified by reference to (a), shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, insofar as this criterion is applicable. c) when goods cannot be classified by reference to (a) or (b), they shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration. 4. Goods which cannot be classified in accordance with the above rules shall be classified under the heading appropriate to the goods to which they are most akin. 5. In addition to the foregoing provisions, the following rules shall a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eneral description. According to the appellant, this Rule is in its favour because Dental equipment is a more specific description over autoclaves and sterilizing equipment . According to the Revenue, Sterilizing equipment is a more specific description of the nature of the goods and not Dental equipment . We find that this Rule does not resolve the issue in favour of either side. Rule 3(b) deals with composite articles and hence is irrelevant to this case. Rule 3(c) states that if there are two or more equally valid classification, the last of such headings shall prevail. Rules 4 and 5 are not relevant to this case. We find that none of the Rules of Interpretation satisfactorily resolve the dispute at hand. 18. While the Central Excise Tariff has only Rules of Interpretation, the Harmonized System of Nomenclature based on which the Tariff is drafted, also has detailed explanatory notes explaining the scope of each heading. It has been held in Bakelite Hylam that notes of HSN can be relied upon to decide the classification. 19. The argument of the appellant is that since their sterilizing equipment is used by dentists, the same should be classified under Chapter 90. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had filed such a declaration on 02.04.2001 which was duly acknowledged by the department on 03.04.2001. Therefore, the allegation that the appellant had not declared the manufacture of these products to the Revenue is factually incorrect. Learned Counsel has also placed a few copies of the invoices showing that the goods were manufactured and were sold describing them correctly in the invoices. He further asserts that there is no special requirement to again declare the manufacture of each product of the Department. As far as the excise returns (ER-1) filed by it is concerned, he submits that they have been filed as per the format given which does not include declaration of individual products in every return. It is open for the assessing officer to call for any further details if felt necessary. 22. We find strong force in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant. The assertion in the show cause notice that the appellant has not declared the manufacture of these products is not true as can be seen from the declaration made by the appellant under Rule 173B and its acknowledgement by the department. We also find force in the contention of the appellant that if the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
