1998 (6) TMI 296 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of photo frames under the Central Excise Tariff.
2. Applicability of the principle of noscitur a sociis.
3. Alternative classification under Heading No. 83.06.
4. Determination of essential character for classification purposes.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Photo Frames under the Central Excise Tariff:
The primary issue in this case is the correct classification of photo frames under the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants initially classified the photo frames under sub-heading No. 9003.19, which pertains to frames and mountings for spectacles, goggles, or the like. However, the demand-cum-show cause notice alleged that the correct classification should be under sub-heading No. 7015.00, which pertains to glass articles. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise confirmed the classification under sub-heading No. 7015.00, and this was upheld by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) after examining the competing tariff entries and the Section/Chapter Notes under the Tariff.

2. Applicability of the Principle of Noscitur a Sociis:
The appellants argued that the expression "or the like" in Heading No. 90.03 of the Tariff was broad enough to include photo frames. They cited the Supreme Court decision in Pardeep Aggarbatti v. State of Punjab, which applied the principle of noscitur a sociis, where each word in an entry draws color from the other words therein. However, the Tribunal found that this principle was not applicable in the present case because photo frames were not grouped with frames and mountings for spectacles and goggles. The Supreme Court's decision was related to the interpretation of "perfumery" in the context of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, which was not analogous to the present case.

3. Alternative Classification under Heading No. 83.06:
The appellants also sought alternative classification under Heading No. 83.06, which covers miscellaneous articles of base metal. However, the Tribunal found that the metal components in the photo frames were minimal and did not constitute the essential character of the frames. The frames were primarily made of glass, and thus could not be considered as articles of base metal.

4. Determination of Essential Character for Classification Purposes:
The Tribunal emphasized that the essential character of an article is a crucial criterion for classification. The photo frames in question were primarily made of glass, with other materials like metallic profiles, acrylic strips, plastic sheets, and PVC strips being secondary components. The Tribunal referred to the Explanatory Notes to the Customs Co-operation Council Nomenclature (CCCN) and the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System Explanatory Notes (HSN), which state that articles classified as glass retain their classification even if combined with other materials, provided they retain the essential character of glass articles. The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Atul Glass Indus. Ltd. v. CCE, which held that the functional character of an article is determined by its primary function and how it is identified by consumers and dealers. In this case, the photo frames were primarily identified by their glass component, which served the essential function of displaying photographs.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the classification under sub-heading No. 7015.00 was appropriate, as the photo frames were essentially articles of glass. The appeal was rejected, and the Tribunal upheld the view taken by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).

← Previous Next →