2002 (2) TMI 714 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal confirms classification of connecting rod and crankcase under Tariff headings

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai confirmed the classification of the connecting rod and crankcase under Tariff headings 84.83 and 84.09 respectively, ... Classification - Demand - Exemption Issues: Classification of connecting rod and crankcase under the Tariff headings 84.83 and 84.09 respectively; Consideration of exemption benefit under Notification 1/93 for duty calculation.Classification of Connecting Rod and Crankcase:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai involved the classification of the connecting rod and crankcase manufactured by the respondent under the Tariff headings. The Asstt. Collector initially classified these goods under Heading 84.09, contrary to the respondent's classification under Heading 84.83. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the respondent's classification, leading to this appeal. The departmental representative argued that the connecting rod is distinct from the crankshaft, falling under Heading 84.09 for parts suitable for engines. Conversely, the respondent contended that the connecting rod is part of the crankshaft, emphasizing the interdependence between the two components. The Tribunal noted the separate functions of the crankshaft and connecting rod, rejecting the argument that the connecting rod should be considered part of the crankshaft merely due to their physical connection. The Tribunal emphasized the distinct functions of the components and declined to accept an opinion presented in support of the respondent's claim.Consideration of Exemption Benefit:The Tribunal also addressed the issue of duty calculation and the benefit of an exemption contained in Notification 1/93. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not examine this aspect due to his classification decision, which was subsequently set aside. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Asstt. Commissioner to determine the duty payable by the respondent, considering the exemption benefit if applicable. The Asstt. Commissioner was directed to provide the respondent with an opportunity to present their case on this matter before making a final determination. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, confirming the classification determined by the Asstt. Collector.In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai addressed the classification of the connecting rod and crankcase, emphasizing the distinct functions of these components and rejecting the argument that the connecting rod should be considered part of the crankshaft. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the need to consider the benefit of an exemption for duty calculation, remanding the matter for further assessment by the Asstt. Commissioner while providing the respondent with an opportunity to present their case.