Tariff classification of plant goods depends on actual function and use; alternative heading sustained over Revenue claim.

Classification of the goods described as Alleviator and Airlift depended on their actual function and use in the cement plant. The Revenue's claim for Chapter heading 8431.00 failed because the goods were not shown to be parts suitable solely or principally for machinery of the specified headings. The appellate authority's acceptance of the alternative classification was not shown to be erroneous, so the Order-in-Appeal was sustained and the Revenue's challenge was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the goods described as Alleviator and Airlift were correctly classifiable under Chapter heading 8479.00, Chapter heading 8431.00, or Chapter heading 8421.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the actual function of the goods in the cement plant. The Revenue sought classification under Chapter heading 8431.00 as parts suitable for use solely or principally with machinery of specified headings, while the assessee had claimed Chapter heading 8479.00 and had alternatively supported Chapter heading 8421.00 before the appellate authority. The Tribunal noted that the appellate authority had accepted the alternative classification and that the goods were not appropriately covered by Chapter heading 84.31. On the facts, the classification adopted in the Order-in-Appeal was not shown to be erroneous.

Conclusion: The goods were not classifiable under Chapter heading 8431.00, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The classification fixed in the Order-in-Appeal was sustained and the assessee's position was accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: Classification must follow the heading that correctly reflects the goods' function and use, and a residuary or alternative heading cannot be displaced unless the Revenue establishes that it is the proper tariff entry.

---