Motor vehicle instrument clusters classifiable as parts under 8708.00; appellate classification beyond notice was impermissible.

A cluster of instruments meant principally and solely for use in motor vehicles was held classifiable under sub-heading 8708.00 as motor vehicle parts, not under sub-heading 9031.00. The Tribunal relied on its earlier identical classification ruling and treated the composite goods as falling outside Chapter 90 in that form. It also held that the Commissioner (Appeals) could not sustain classification under headings 90.26 and 90.29 because those entries had not been put to notice in the show cause proceedings. The original classification under 8708.00 was restored and the duty demand affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cluster of instruments was classifiable under sub-heading 9031.00 or under sub-heading 8708.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; and (ii) whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could classify the goods under tariff headings 90.26 and 90.29 which were not put to notice.

Issue (i): Whether the cluster of instruments was classifiable under sub-heading 9031.00 or under sub-heading 8708.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: The goods were cleared as clusters/sets of instruments meant principally and solely for use in motor vehicles. The same assessee had earlier faced an identical classification dispute, and the Tribunal had already held that such clusters, not falling within Chapter 90 in their composite form and intended for motor vehicles, were classifiable as motor vehicle parts under sub-heading 8708.00.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 8708.00, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could classify the goods under tariff headings 90.26 and 90.29 which were not put to notice.

Analysis: The appellate authority was required to decide only between the competing classifications proposed by the parties. It was not open to classify the goods under tariff entries that were neither proposed in the show cause notices nor otherwise put to notice, as that would exceed the scope of the dispute and deprive the assessee of proper notice.

Conclusion: The classification under headings 90.26 and 90.29 could not be sustained, in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the original authority's classification under sub-heading 8708.00 was restored, with the duty demand affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A cluster of instruments intended principally and solely for use in motor vehicles is classifiable as motor vehicle parts under sub-heading 8708.00, and an appellate authority cannot sustain a classification under tariff entries not put to notice.

---