Integral component classification follows the main goods, defeating denial of excise exemption in this tariff dispute.

An integral component of goods generally follows the tariff classification of the main goods to which it belongs. Here, the Bottom Discs of Slag Pot and Slag Ladle Cups were held to be classifiable under Heading 84.54, not Heading 86.09, because the classification of the principal goods had already been determined under Heading 84.54. On that basis, the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. could not be sustained, and the lower authority's contrary classification was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Bottom Discs of Slag Pot and Slag Ladle Cups were correctly classifiable under Heading 86.09 or under Heading 84.54 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and consequently whether the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. was justified.

Analysis: The disputed Bottom Discs were treated by the adjudicating authority as integral parts of Slag Pot and Slag Ladle Cups and therefore classifiable with those goods under Heading 86.09. That foundation could not survive once the earlier classification order, on which the adjudication had relied, had been set aside and the Slag Pot and Slag Ladle Cups themselves were held classifiable under Heading 84.54. Since the Bottom Discs were integral parts of those goods, their classification had to follow the classification of the main goods.

Conclusion: The Bottom Discs were classifiable under Heading 84.54 and not under Heading 86.09, with the result that the impugned order denying the benefit could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the classification adopted by the lower authority was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An integral component of goods takes the tariff classification of the goods to which it belongs, particularly where the classification of the main goods has already been determined by binding precedent.

---