2000 (2) TMI 327 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Classification of crimping tools under Central Excise Tariff - Heading 82.05, 84.63, and 84.67.

Analysis:

1. Classification under Heading 82.05:
The appellant claimed the classification of crimping tools under Heading 82.05 for hand tools. However, the Assistant Collector classified them under Heading 84.67 for tools working in hand with pneumatic, hydraulic features. The Collector (Appeals) changed the classification to Heading 84.63, considering the nature and function of the tools, emphasizing that the size, weight, and additional features of the tools were not suitable for Heading 82.05. The decision was based on the definition of pliers and the specific characteristics of the tools in question.

2. Appeal against the classification:
The Revenue appealed against the classification under Heading 84.63, arguing that it did not align with the Central Excise classification scheme. The argument was based on the distinction between hand tools (Heading 82.05), machine tools (Heading 84.63), and tools working in hand (Heading 84.67). The Revenue contended that the crimping tools did not qualify as machine tools and referred to the Explanatory Notes to HSN to support their position.

3. Explanatory Notes and correct classification:
The Explanatory Notes clarified that Heading 84.67 covered tools with non-electric motors for hand use, excluding tools that were too heavy or large for hand-held operation. The notes also excluded tools fixed to surfaces or running on rails. The D.R. highlighted that the crimping tools, although hand-held and using hydraulic power, did not meet the criteria for machine tools under Heading 84.63. The correct classification, as per the Explanatory Notes, was under Heading 84.67 for hand-held tools.

4. Final decision and classification:
The Tribunal concluded that the crimping tools were not machine tools and were appropriately classified under Heading 84.67, as originally approved by the Assistant Collector. The decision was based on the specific characteristics and use of the tools, aligning with the Explanatory Notes in the HSN. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was upheld, setting aside the previous order-in-appeal that classified the tools under Heading 84.63.

In summary, the judgment resolved the issue of classification of crimping tools under the Central Excise Tariff, emphasizing the specific characteristics and intended use of the tools to determine the correct heading. The decision highlighted the importance of aligning the classification with the Explanatory Notes to ensure accurate categorization under the appropriate tariff heading.