1997 (10) TMI 180 - AT - Central Excise

Electric coil stove not hot plate: Exempt under Notification 33/69-C.E.

COLLECTOR OF C. EX., BANGALORE Versus SUPREME ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES

COLLECTOR OF C. EX., BANGALORE Versus SUPREME ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 779 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Whether the product in question is an electric hot plate or an electric coil stove.2. Eligibility for the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 33/69-C.E., dated 1-3-1969.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Classification of the Product (Electric Hot Plate vs. Electric Coil Stove)The Revenue contended that the electric coil stove should be classified as an electric hot plate under Tariff Item 33C of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and thus not eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 33/69-C.E. The lower authorities had previously held that electric coil stoves are electric hot plates due to their construction and features. The assessee argued that electric coil stoves and hot plates are distinct products, supported by separate ISI specifications and commercial recognition.Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the ISI specifications for hot plates (IS 365-1965) and electric coil stoves (IS 4151-1985) provide different definitions and descriptions for these items. The hot plate is described as having a solid or sheathed heating element, while the electric coil stove has a heating spiral embedded in a metal body. The Tribunal concluded that these specifications indicate a clear distinction between the two products, supporting the assessee's claim that they are different.Issue 2: Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 33/69-C.E.The exemption Notification No. 33/69-C.E. exempts certain domestic electric appliances falling under Tariff Item 33C, but explicitly excludes hot plates and other specified items. The Revenue argued that the electric coil stove falls under the excluded category of hot plates. The Tribunal, however, emphasized the importance of interpreting the notification based on commercial usage and understanding. The Tribunal found that in commercial parlance, electric coil stoves and hot plates are recognized as distinct items, with different market prices and consumer perceptions.Separate Judgments by the Judges:1. Member (J) S.L. Peeran:- Concluded that the electric coil stove and hot plate are distinct items based on ISI specifications and commercial parlance.- Held that the electric coil stove is not a hot plate and is eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 33/69-C.E.2. Vice President S.K. Bhatnagar:- Disagreed with Member (J), arguing that the ISI specifications indicate that an electric appliance with enclosed heating elements qualifies as a hot plate, regardless of whether it has a hot plate at the top.- Held that the electric coil stove should be classified as a hot plate and thus not eligible for the exemption.3. Member (J) Archana Wadhwa (Third Member):- Agreed with Member (J) S.L. Peeran, emphasizing the commercial distinction between hot plates and electric coil stoves.- Concluded that the electric coil stove is not a hot plate and is eligible for the exemption.Final Order:In view of the majority opinion, the Tribunal held that the electric coil stove is not a hot plate and is eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 33/69-C.E. Consequently, the appeals by the Revenue were rejected.Conclusion:The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of commercial understanding and specific product specifications in determining the classification and eligibility for exemptions. The electric coil stove was ultimately recognized as distinct from a hot plate, allowing it to benefit from the exemption provided by Notification No. 33/69-C.E.