TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1389/2019 - Dated:- 18-10-2019 - Hon ble Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri B L Narsihman, Advocate - for the appellant Shri Sunil Kumar, Authorized Representative - for the respondent ORDER Bijay Kumar: 1. The Present appeal is filed against the Order dated 18/10/2018 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeal), vide which he has sustained the assessment order dated 13/01/2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, (Gr), ICD Tuglakabad, New Delhi confirming the demand of ₹ 1,95,134/-. Being aggrieved with the impugned order the Appellant is before us in this Appeal. The appellant has imported a consignment of gear reduction blank (hereinafter referred to as impugned goods ) from overseas supplier from China vide Bill of Entry No. 76447685 dated 30/11/2016 at ICD, Tuglakabad. The Appellant classified the impugned goods under tariff item 8483 40 00 as Gears and gearing, other than toothed wheel, chain sprockets and other transmission elements presented separately. This classification of the impugned goods was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing wheels and steering columns. It is submitted that the appellant is not disputing the fact that the impugned goods are parts of steering columns but their classification under tariff heading 87089400. 2.2 The learned Advocate further submitted that Section Note 2 to Section XVII is not applicable in the case at hand. As the Department solely relied upon the exclusion made under Section Note 2 (e) to Section XVII, which states that only those articles of chapter heading 8443 shall be excluded from this Section, which constitutes the integral part of the engine or motor. Therefore, they are correctly classified under Customs Tariff Heading 8708. In this regard, it was submitted that the Department has mis-understood the scope of Section Note 2 to Section XVII of Customs Tariff Act to the extent that even though the impugned goods are excluded by virtue of Section Note 2 (e) which does not mean that it is included in chapter 87. 2.3 It is also submitted that Section Note 3 to Section XVII shall not apply in the case at hand as only those parts which are not suitable for use solely or principally with article of Section XVII shall not be covered und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be classified under that specific heading (i.e. 8483) and not as parts and accessories under Heading 84.66 even if they are suitable for use solely or principally with the machines of Heading Nos. 84.65 to 84.65 2.5 It is also submitted that all types of steering gears are to be classified in tariff item 8483 40 00 as per HSN Explanatory Note placing reliance in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Best Cast (P) Ltd. [2001 (127) ELT 730 (Tri.-Chennai)] 2.6 Learned Advocate further submitted that the reliance placed by learned Commissioner (Appeal) in the impugned order in the case of M/s Telco Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune reported at [2006(105) ELT 151 Tri-Mum] is not correct to the extent that Rule 3(a) of GI Rules read with HSN Explanatory Note was not considered, and therefore, the decision cannot be relied upon to conclude the classification of impugned goods. 3. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue, however, supported the impugned order and also submitted a written submission dated 08/05/2019. In the written submission it was submitted the classification of the impugned goods should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Para 4 of the order is reproduced as under; 4. We have considered the material on records, submissions made and find that the subject goods are parts of gear box and clutch which are classified under Heading 8483.00, therefore, these items cannot be said to be articles of Section XVII, which are not excluded by Section Note 1K to Section XVI. Therefore, we find no merit in the grounds urged in the appeal filed by the Revenue when the gear box is classified under heading 8483.00, parts thereof as per Notes have to be classified thereunder and not as parts of Motor vehicle under Chapter 87 as proposed in the Revenue appeal. The parts are not understood as parts of motor vehicle but are understood as parts of gear box, and therefore, not only by reading of interpretation of Chapter Notes as conducted by Commissioner (Appeals) but also by commercial parlance, the goods will get classified as parts of gear box under Heading 8483.00. Therefore, we find no reason to uphold the present appeal. This order was challenging by the Revenue before Hon‟ble Supreme Court in which dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the Tribunal. Thus the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot under Chapter 87 as a part of motor vehicle is contended by Revenue. Relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under; 3. The contention of the Revenue is that the transmission shafts manufactured by respondents specially designed for use in the motor vehicle of Chapter 87 of the Tariff. Therefore, are to be classified under heading as parts of vehicles. We find that this issue is settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore, 1998 (102) ELT 732 and in the case of CCE, Coimbatore vs. Venkatachalapathy Industries, 1999 (106) ELT 176. In these cases crank shafts tappet shafts, gear, wheels, pulleys and picking shafts are to be classified under heading 84.83 of the Central Excise, Tariff being specifically covered therein and not as parts of accessories of the maschines. In view of the above decisions of the Tribunal, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. 10. We also considered the decision of Teleco Ltd (supra) wherein it was held as under; 2. In the instant case, there is evidence that the impugned goods are not integ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
