1996 (1) TMI 207 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of Wind Shield Wiper Motors under Tariff Item No. 30 or Tariff Item No. 68

Comprehensive Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of Wind Shield Wiper Motors
The primary issue in this appeal is the classification of Wind Shield Wiper Motors under the relevant tariff item. The appellants argue that these motors should be classified under Tariff Item No. 68 as parts of motor vehicles, while the department contends they should fall under Tariff Item No. 30 as electric motors.

Analysis:
The Ld. Advocate for the appellants argued that Wind Shield Wiper Motors are specifically designed for use in motor vehicles and are not ordinary electric motors. He highlighted the technical differences in the manufacturing process and functionality of these motors compared to regular electric motors. Referring to 'Automotive Technology' literature, it was emphasized that these motors are not commonly found in shops selling electric motors but are specific to motor vehicle parts dealers. The argument was supported by a Single Judge judgment of the High Court, which was subsequently upheld by the Division Bench.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Fiscal Statute
The debate also involved the interpretation of the fiscal statute concerning the classification of goods based on how they are understood in the trade and commercial community rather than technical definitions.

Analysis:
The Ld. Advocate referred to a judgment emphasizing that the meaning attributed to a term in a fiscal statute by people in the trade is crucial. The court highlighted the importance of considering how goods are understood in common parlance or in trade circles when interpreting relevant tariff items.

Issue 3: Legal Precedents
The case referred to various legal precedents, including judgments from the High Court and the Apex Court, which provided guidance on the classification of similar items under the tariff.

Analysis:
Legal precedents, such as the Sahney Steels case, were cited to support the argument that Wind Shield Wiper Motors should be classified as parts of motor vehicles under Tariff Item No. 68. The judgments emphasized the burden on the department to prove the classification and the importance of considering the understanding of terms in the trade.

Conclusion:
After considering the arguments, legal precedents, and the technical characteristics of Wind Shield Wiper Motors, the Tribunal concluded that these motors should be classified under Tariff Item No. 68 as parts of motor vehicles. The decision was based on how these motors are understood in the automobile trade, aligning with the interpretation of the fiscal statute by the commercial community. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.