TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal remands tungsten carbide case for re-examination</h1> <h3>SANDVIK ASIA LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE</h3> SANDVIK ASIA LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE - 1997 (93) E.L.T. 475 (Tribunal) Issues: Classification of tungsten carbide blanks with Neyveli inserts under the TariffClassification under heading No. 81.01 vs. heading No. 84.31:The appeal involved the classification of tungsten carbide blanks with Neyveli inserts under the Tariff. Initially, the appellants classified the products under heading No. 81.01 as articles of tungsten, which was approved. However, a show cause notice sought to reclassify the products under heading No. 84.31 as parts suitable for machinery. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the reclassification under subheading No. 8431.00, contrary to the initial classification under subheading No. 8101.00.Nature of the product and its use in machinery:The product in question, Neyveli inserts, was specifically made for use with excavators and was welded to the teeth of excavator buckets to protect them from damage during use on hard and rocky surfaces. The inserts were developed as a protective measure to increase the longevity of the teeth. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) determined that the Neyveli inserts were parts of the excavator buckets.Classification under the Tariff and HSN Explanatory Notes:The discussion revolved around the classification of the tungsten carbide inserts under the Tariff. It was argued that the inserts were not essential for the excavators to function and were more of a consumable item rather than a part of the machinery. The Tribunal considered the provisions of Chapter 81 and noted that most tungsten articles, except springs, were classified under Section 16 or 17 of the Tariff. The Tribunal also referenced the HSN Explanatory Notes, which excluded tungsten carbide from heading No. 81.01 and suggested a more appropriate classification under heading No. 82.09 for products like the inserts.Remand for re-examination by jurisdictional Commissioner:After detailed analysis, the Tribunal ruled out the classification under heading No. 84.31 and decided to remand the matter back to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise for a fresh examination. The jurisdictional Commissioner was directed to allow the appellants to present their case, including arguments for alternative classification under heading No. 82.09, before issuing a new order. The appeal was disposed of by remand for further consideration.
TaxTMI 