2003 (9) TMI 379 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal reclassifies 'Insulator Pin' under Tariff Item 68, not 52.

METAFORGE ENGG. CORPN. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PATNA

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellants, classifying the 'Insulator Pin' under Tariff Item 68 instead of Item 52 of the Old Central Excise Tariff. ... Insulator pin with threads - Demand - Limitation Issues:Classification of 'Insulator Pin' under Tariff Item 68 or Item 52 of the Old Central Excise Tariff.Analysis:1. The primary issue in the appeals was the classification of the 'Insulator Pin' manufactured by the Appellants under Tariff Item 68 as claimed by them or under Item 52 as confirmed by the Commissioner.2. The Appellants argued that the pins were articles of forging, made from mild steel round, and used as stands to hold insulators without fastening utility. They relied on legal precedents emphasizing trade understanding for classification and historical classifications by Excise Authorities to support their claim under Tariff Item 68.3. The Appellants contended that the presence of threads in the pins was not sufficient to classify them under Tariff Item 52, citing legal interpretations that recognized components based on market understanding rather than technical definitions.4. Reference was made to a case where G.I. Pins were classified under Item No. 68 and used in the manufacture of finished goods under the same item, supporting the Appellants' classification argument. Additionally, the limitation period for the demand of duty was questioned based on the Appellants' classification declarations and historical departmental views.5. The Respondent argued that the 'Insulator Pin' fell under Tariff Item 52, citing specifications and legal interpretations regarding bolts, nuts, and screws of base metal. They contended that the threading on the pins was for fastening purposes, and the extended limitation period was applicable due to incorrect tariff item declaration.6. The Tribunal examined the Tariff Items and legal principles, emphasizing that Tariff Item 52 covered bolts, nuts, and screws made with power, while Item 68 was a residuary entry for unspecified goods. The Tribunal considered the common parlance interpretation and market understanding for classification.7. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellants, noting that the main function of the 'Insulator Pin' was to support insulators, not for fastening, and the threading did not automatically classify it as a bolt, nut, or screw under Tariff Item 52. The absence of evidence regarding I.S. Specification 2486's coverage of 'Screw stud' supported the classification under Item 68.8. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellants, rejecting the extended limitation period for duty demand, as the Appellants had declared the classification in 1980 and the Department's historical belief that the pins fell under Item 68. The Tribunal allowed all three appeals based on the classification under Tariff Item 68 and absence of suppression or incorrect declaration by the Appellants.