1989 (11) TMI 146 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal classifies disputed goods as fasteners under Item 52

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Department, classifying the disputed goods as falling under Item 52 of the Central Excise Tariff. Despite the ... Classification Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff - Whether goods fall under Item 52 or Item 68 of the Tariff.Detailed Analysis:1. Classification Dispute: The appeal pertains to a classification dispute over goods known as 'Pin (Injection Timer Mounting)' manufactured by the respondents. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Collector's classification under Item 52 of Central Excise Tariff, instead holding that the goods should be classified under Item 68. The central issue revolves around whether the product qualifies as a fastener falling under Item 52 or as goods not elsewhere specified in the Tariff under Item 68.2. Appellant's Argument: The Appellant, represented by Shri K.D. Tayal, argued that the product should be classified under Item 52 as it functions as a special type of fastener designed to prevent axial movement of the camshaft gear. The Appellant emphasized the functional nature of the item and cited correspondence between the respondents and the buyer, M/s. TELCO, to support the classification under Item 52. Reference was made to legal precedents, including a Bombay High Court decision, to establish that goods with special engineering features, even if designed for specific applications like motor vehicles, should be classified under Item 52.3. Respondent's Argument: On the other hand, the Respondent, represented by Shri B.K. Kulkarni, contended that the 'Pin (Injection Timer Mounting)' is not a mere bolt or nut but a specialized component fixed to the camshaft and camgear for timing fuel injection. The Respondent argued that the product, known as 'Pin-ITM,' cannot be simply categorized as a bolt due to its unique design and application in motor vehicles.4. Judgment and Analysis: The Tribunal analyzed the functional utility of the product and the correspondence between the parties. Despite the Respondent's assertions, the Tribunal found that the essential function of the 'Pin-ITM' was that of a fastener, albeit with additional timing capabilities. Drawing parallels with a previous Bombay High Court decision involving self-locking nuts, the Tribunal concluded that the product should be classified under Item 52 of the Central Excise Tariff. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Collector (Appeals) order and allowed the Department's appeal, affirming the classification under Item 52.In conclusion, the judgment delves into the nuanced interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff provisions, emphasizing the functional characteristics and commercial usage of the disputed product to determine its appropriate classification under the tariff schedule.