1997 (2) TMI 319 - AT - Central Excise

Customs Tribunal rules collapsible spools for machines as accessories, not integral parts.

The Tribunal upheld the Customs' classification of collapsible spools for take up machines under Heading 73.33/40(1) based on Note 1(C) of Section XVI of ... Notification Nos. 77/86-C.E., 109/87-C.E. and 7/88-C.E. Issues: Classification of collapsible spools for take up machines under Customs Tariff Act, 1975Analysis:1. The appellants, manufacturers of Auto Tyre Bead wires, imported spares and accessories for the take up machines, seeking assessment under Chapters 84, 85, and 90. The Customs assessed the spares and accessories as suggested, except for collapsible spools for the take up machines, classified under Heading 73.33/40(1) based on Note 1(C) of Section XVI of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this classification, leading to the present appeal.2. The appellant's argument emphasized the collapsible spools' integral role in the machine's function, supporting it with specifications and layout details. They cited various judgments to establish the spools' classification as integral parts of the machinery, relying on Section Note 2 to Section XVI and supplier specifications.3. The respondent contended that the spools were not essential parts of the machinery, referring to a catalogue showing compatibility with various spool sizes. They argued that the spools could be considered accessories rather than integral parts, justifying the classification under Note 1(C) of the Customs Tariff Act.4. The Tribunal deliberated on whether the collapsible spools were integral parts of the machinery. It noted that previous judgments cited were not directly applicable to the current case. The judgment in Electrosteel Castings Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise defined 'parts of the machine' as components essential for the machine's function, indicating the spool's role as an accessory rather than a component part.5. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of Section Notes and Chapter Notes in classification, emphasizing that not all essential accessories are necessarily termed as parts. It referenced past cases involving diskettes in computers and typewriter ribbons to illustrate the distinction between parts and accessories.6. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the collapsible spools were distinguishable due to their collapsibility, noting the spools' approximate dimensional specifications and compatibility with various sizes as per the catalogue. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's classification, rejecting the appeal.