TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attracted higher rate of duty than the one leviable under sub-heading 84.48. Thereafter, two show cause notices were issued to the appellants one dated 30-9-88 and another dated 11-1-89 for payment of the differential duty amount of Rs. 44,236.49 as products were found to be classifiable under sub-heading 84.83 of the CETA. They, however, contested the correctness of those notices on the ground that their products were classifiable only under sub-heading 84.48 of the CETA being parts suitable for use solely and principally with the machines meant for preparing textile fabrics. They also averred that during the course of provisional assessment no demand could be raised from them and that there was no ground for the modification of their earlier approved classification lists under sub-heading 84.48 of the CETA, without sufficient cause or reason. The Assistant Collector, however, did not agree with their contention and approved their classification list only under sub-heading 84.83 of the CETA and also confirmed demand of the differential duty amount of Rs. 44,236.94 on them through the order-in-original dated 13-8-93. His order had been affirmed in appeal by the Collector (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts. The end use of the products in question has not to be taken into consideration specially when there is no reference to the end use for excluding the products from the specific entry of sub-heading 84.83 of the CETA. 7.Regarding the nature of the product of the appellants there is no dispute that they are manufacturing tension pulleys which stand specifically mentioned under sub-heading 84.83 of the CETA. This sub-heading as per the Explanatory Notes on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System Vol. III, covers all types of pulleys. According to these Explanatory Notes pulleys consist of wheels, sometimes with a grooved rim, which transmit rotary movement from one to another by means of an endless belt or rope revolving in contract between them. The heading also covers simple pulleys, drums (wide pulleys), conical pulleys, stepped pulleys etc. The group also covers pulleys blocks for hoists, etc. and free pulleys which do not transmit any power themselves but simply act as a guide or turing (sic) post for a transmission rope or cable. 8.Note 2 which consists of two clauses i.e. (a) and (b), of Section XVI of Chapter 84 lays down the rule to be followed for dete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y it the parentage and consign it to residuary item." In that very case, the Apex Court had also not approved the concept of classification of the goods on the basis of end use and observed as under : - "When there is no reference to the use or adoptation of the article the basis of end use for classification under Tariff Entry is absolutely irrelevant." 9.The above said Rule of Interpretation embodied in Note 2, clause (a) had been also applied by the Tribunal earlier in ARW Filters v. CCE Pune, 1998 (104) E.L.T. 83. In that case classification of filters meant for air and liquids used for different machineries was involved and it was observed as under : - "Where any parts are specifically mentioned in any tariff heading, they are to be classified in the said tariff heading except the excluded tariff headings mentioned in Note 2(a)." 10.No doubt under sub-heading 84.48 of the CETA there is a reference to the parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with machines but it would cover only those parts and accessories which as per clause (a) of Note 2 of Section XVI referred to above, cannot be classified in their respective headings. In respect of those p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f being parts of textile machinery/powerlooms, was claimed under sub-heading 84.48, but it was held that these were classifiable not under sub-heading 84.48, but under sub-heading 84.83 of the CETA, by applying the rule of interpretation laid down in Note 2(a) and not 2(b) of Section XVI of Chapter 84 and the ratio of the law laid down by the Apex Court in M/s. Dunlop India Ltd. and Madras Rubber Factory, (supra). The ratio of the law laid down in Enarco Ltd. Process Rubber Industries Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the Counsel, is not at all attracted to the present case as the facts and circumstances of both those cases were quite distinct and the products involved were also different than the one in the present case. 13.The argument of the learned Counsel that after having once accepted the classification of the product in question under sub-heading 84.48 of the CETA by the Excise Department, the same could not be changed without assigning sufficient cause, also cannot hold the field in face of the well settled principle that there exists no estoppel in taxation matters, as observed by the Apex Court in Dunlop India Ltd. and Madras Rubber Factory, (supra). Moreover, the Excise D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
