1996 (12) TMI 413 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal classifies 'guy rod' as part of structure under Tariff Heading 73.08, rejects department's sub-heading 7318.10 classification.

The Tribunal classified the 'guy rod' under Tariff Heading 73.08 as a part of the structure, rejecting the department's classification under sub-heading ... - Issues:Classification of 'guy rod' under Tariff Sub-Heading 7318.10 or 7308.90, Function of 'guy rod' - fastening or supporting.Detailed Analysis:The case involves the classification of 'guy rod' by the department under sub-heading 7318.10 instead of 7308.90, attracting a higher rate of duty. The appellant argued that the function of the 'guy rod' is to support or act as a stand for the steel pole, not fasten it, as contended by the department. The appellant relied on Chamber's Science and Technology dictionary to support their argument, emphasizing the dissimilarities between 'guy rod' and other articles specified under Tariff heading 73.18 like bolts, nuts, and screws. The appellant also suggested considering the 'guy rod' as a part of the structure under Tariff heading 73.08. The department, on the other hand, argued that the primary purpose of the 'guy rod' is to fasten the steel pole in an erect position, citing relevant Tariff notes and interpretative rules to support their classification decision.The lower appellate authority upheld the classification of 'guy rod' under sub-heading 7318.10, emphasizing the fastening function of the 'guy rod' in securing the steel pole with the anchor base loop. The authority referred to CBEC Tariff Advice and the explanatory notes to Tariff heading 73.18 to support their decision. However, the authority's interpretation was challenged by the appellant, who presented a drawing of the 'guy rod assembly' showing that the entire assembly, not just the 'guy rod,' secures the pole in an upright position. The appellant argued that the 'guy rod' should be considered a part of the structure under Tariff heading 73.08, as it contributes to the overall stability of the assembly.After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal analyzed the function of the 'guy rod' in detail. The Tribunal noted that while 'fastening' and 'supporting' functions may overlap in certain cases, the essential role of the 'guy rod' in supporting the steel pole with the overhead assembly indicated that it should be classified differently. The Tribunal concluded that heading 73.18 was not suitable for the 'guy rod' and upheld its classification under Tariff Heading 73.08 as a part of the structure. Consequently, the demand for differential duty was set aside, and the classification under 73.08 was affirmed. The Tribunal did not address the appellant's plea regarding the effective date of the duty demand due to the classification decision.In summary, the judgment revolved around the classification of the 'guy rod' based on its function of fastening or supporting the steel pole. The Tribunal ultimately classified the 'guy rod' under Tariff Heading 73.08 as a part of the structure, rejecting the department's classification under sub-heading 7318.10. The detailed analysis considered various arguments, Tariff notes, and practical implications of the 'guy rod' assembly to arrive at the final classification decision.