1994 (3) TMI 200 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal confirms product classification under Tariff Item 68 over 34A based on expert opinions

COLLR. OF C. EX., BANGALORE Versus KASHYAP ENGG. & METALLURGICALS (P) LTD.

The tribunal upheld the classification of the product 'bushes' under Tariff Item 68 instead of Tariff Item 34A, as it did not meet the technical ... Classification Issues:Classification of product under Tariff Item 34A, Interpretation of IS specification 4774-1968, Application of trade nomenclature in classification.Analysis:The case involves a dispute over the classification of the product 'bushes' under Tariff Item 34A. The assessee, manufacturing monolithic integral fall-circular castings, resisted the department's attempt to classify the product as per the department's interpretation. The department contended that the product should be classified under Tariff Item 34A, referring to thin-walled bearings used in motor vehicles. The assessee, supported by the opinion of the Indian Institute of Science, argued that the product did not conform to the IS specification for thin-walled bearings and thrust washers, as per IS : 4774 : 1968.The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, after detailed examination of the opinion from the Indian Institute of Science and the clarificatory letter from DGTD, classified the product under Tariff Item 68, not under Tariff Item 34A. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this classification, emphasizing that the product did not meet the specifications of a thin-walled bearing as defined in the Chambers dictionary of Science and Technology. The Collector also noted the absence of bi-metal or multi-metal composition in the assessee's product, a characteristic of thin-walled bearings.The Revenue, dissatisfied with the decision, filed an appeal arguing that the product satisfied the functional aspect of the bushes as per IS specification 4774-1968 and should be classified under Tariff Item 34A. They claimed that the thickness of the product, being 1/8 of an inch, fell within the definition of thin-walled bearings. However, the appellate tribunal, after considering the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, concluded that the product did not meet the technical specifications or trade nomenclature of a thin-walled bearing. They highlighted the opinions of various authorities, including the Indian Institute of Science and the National Test House, to support their decision.Ultimately, the tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' findings and rejected the Revenue's appeal. They emphasized that both technically and in trade parlance, the product did not qualify as a thin-walled bearing, and hence, its classification under Tariff Item 34A was deemed incorrect. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and expert opinions presented during the proceedings.