Classification of thermistors as heater parts upheld, with prior-period differential duty sustained under binding precedent.

Imported thermistors for insecticide electric diffusers were held classifiable under sub-heading 8516.90 as parts of electric heaters, because goods suitable for use solely or principally with such machines fall with the machine under Section Note 2(b) of Section XVI rather than under a broader description. The objection based on Section Note 2(a) was rejected. On differential duty, the view followed was that revised classification can sustain demand for the period permitted by binding precedent, namely six months prior to the revision. The classification and consequential prior-period duty demand were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported thermistors were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 8516.90 as parts of electric heaters for diffusing insecticides, or under sub-heading 8533.40 as thermistors. (ii) Whether differential duty could be demanded for the period prior to the reclassification under sub-heading 8516.90.

Issue (i): Whether the imported thermistors were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 8516.90 as parts of electric heaters for diffusing insecticides, or under sub-heading 8533.40 as thermistors.

Analysis: The goods were described in the manufacturer's catalogue as thermistors for insecticide electric diffusers. Heading 85.16 covers electric heating resistors other than those of Heading 85.45, and parts suitable for use solely or principally with such goods fall to be classified with the machines under Section Note 2(b) of Section XVI. The goods were found to be heaters for electric insecticide diffusers rather than mere thermistors, and the objection based on Section Note 2(a) was rejected.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classified under sub-heading 8516.90. This issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether differential duty could be demanded for the period prior to the reclassification under sub-heading 8516.90.

Analysis: The applicable view was taken from the larger Bench decision of the Supreme Court, which held that the department may demand duty on the basis of the revised classification for a period of six months prior to the date of revision. That view was followed in preference to the contrary view relied on by the assessee.

Conclusion: Differential duty for the relevant prior period was validly demanded. This issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The classification under sub-heading 8516.90 and the consequential demand of differential duty were upheld, leaving no relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are in substance parts of a specific machine or apparatus and are suitable for use solely or principally with that machine, they are to be classified with that machine rather than under a more general description, and duty may be demanded on the basis of a revised classification for the period permitted by binding precedent.

---