2004 (7) TMI 390 - AT - Central Excise

Revenue's Appeal Rejected: Thrust Bearing Assembly Classified under Chapter Heading 84.83, Exemption Upheld

The application for Review of Order filed by the Revenue challenging the classification of the thrust bearing assembly under the Central Excise Tariff Act ... Bearing assembly - Thrust bearing assembly - Classification of Issues:Classification of thrust bearing assembly under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Interpretation of Notification 6/2000 regarding bearing assemblies.Analysis:1. The ROM application filed by the Revenue against the Final Order of the Tribunal was treated as an appeal seeking review, which was rejected based on legal precedents. The application was considered on its merits despite being a Review of Order in name only.2. The applicant contended that the Tribunal's order contained apparent mistakes that needed rectification, specifically regarding the classification of the thrust bearing assembly.3. The Revenue argued that the thrust bearing assembly should be classified under Chapter Heading 84.82 as bearings, contrary to the Tribunal's decision. The Bench disagreed, emphasizing that bearing housings incorporating ball or roller bearings are classified under Heading 84.83, distinct from bearings under 84.82.4. The Revenue relied on precedents like Integral Bearing Pvt. Ltd. and Kirloskar Oil Engines to support their classification argument. However, the Bench found these decisions inapplicable due to different contexts, lack of reference to relevant heading notes, and changes in tariff interpretative rules.5. The Revenue's argument regarding the benefit of Notification 6/2000 for bearing assemblies was dismissed. The Bench clarified that the notification's strict interpretation excludes bearing assemblies, as it specifically mentions bearings without including bearing assemblies. Therefore, the thrust bearing assembly's classification under 84.82 does not affect the exemption under the notification.6. Ultimately, the application for Review of Order was rejected, maintaining the Tribunal's original decision on the classification of the thrust bearing assembly.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, and the legal reasoning applied by the Bench in reaching its decision.