1998 (3) TMI 239 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of plastic parts of sanitaryware under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background: The appeal was filed by the department against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) regarding the classification of plastic parts of sanitaryware under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

2. Classification Dispute: The respondents sought classification of plastic products under sub-heading 3926.90, claiming NIL rate of duty under Notification No. 53/88. The department issued a show cause notice for classification under sub-heading No. 3922.90 @ 20% ad valorem, denying concessional rates under Notification No. 175/86.

3. Collector's Decision: The Collector (A) held that parts of sanitaryware made from plastic should be classified under heading 39.26 as articles of plastics, distinct from sanitaryware proper under heading 3922.90.

4. Department's Argument: The department contended that parts are generally classified in the same heading as the main item unless a separate heading exists. The absence of specific headings for the parts of sanitaryware in Chapter 39 indicated classification under sanitaryware of plastics.

5. Respondent's Argument: The respondents argued that since there were clear headings for parts in other chapters, the absence of a specific heading for parts of sanitaryware in Chapter 39 implied classification under the residuary Heading 3926.00.

6. Precedents and Instructions: CEGAT's decision in a previous case and CBEC instructions supported classifying similar plastic products under heading 3926.00 as a residuary heading for items not clearly falling under other headings.

7. Decision: The Tribunal considered the nature and usage of the products in question. Since the items had multiple uses beyond sanitaryware, and the department failed to prove their exclusive use in sanitaryware, the classification under the residuary heading 3926.00 was upheld. Precedents and instructions regarding general-use articles were deemed inapplicable to the specific case at hand.

8. Conclusion: The Tribunal rejected the department's appeal, emphasizing the need to evaluate each item's classification based on its specific characteristics and usage. The decision highlighted the importance of evidence supporting the exclusive use of products in a particular category for accurate classification under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.