Machinery classification under the tariff depends on technical evidence and actual function, not purchase orders alone.

Classification of the disputed goods depended on their actual nature and supporting technical evidence, not on the purchase order alone. Drawings, invoices and Chartered Engineer certificates showed that each item was an individual machine with its own pneumatic cylinder acting as a prime mover. Applying Section Note 5 of Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, goods falling within the relevant note are treated as machines rather than mere parts. On that basis, the items were distinguishable from parts of a handling system and were correctly classified under Heading 8428, not Heading 8431.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disputed items were classifiable as parts of machinery under Heading 8431 or as machines under Heading 8428.

Analysis: The classification turned on the nature of the goods and the evidence supporting their character. The Commissioner had examined drawings, purchase orders, invoices and Chartered Engineer certificates, which showed that the items were individual machines with their own pneumatic cylinders acting as prime movers. Under Section Note 5 of Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, equipment, apparatus, machinery and appliances falling within the relevant chapter note are to be treated as machines, not as mere parts. The challenge based only on the purchase order was found insufficient, especially when the technical certificates explained the structure, components and use of each item. The goods were therefore distinguishable from parts of a handling system and were correctly treated as machinery.

Conclusion: The goods were rightly classified under Heading 8428 and not under Heading 8431; the Revenue's challenge failed.

---