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 classifies U-Bolts, C-Bolts, Nuts under Chapter Heading 8708.00 as motor vehicle parts.</h1> <h3>COLLECTOR OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH Versus GS. AUTO INTERNATIONAL</h3> COLLECTOR OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH Versus GS. AUTO INTERNATIONAL - 1999 (111) E.L.T. 389 (Tribunal) Issues:Classification of certain items under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Chapter 87 vs. Chapter 73.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the order of Collector (Appeals) regarding the classification of items like U-Bolts, C-Bolts, Nuts, etc. The appellant claimed these items should be classified under Chapter 87 as parts of motor vehicles, while the Asstt. Collector classified them under Chapter 73 as articles of iron and steel. The Collector (Appeals) observed that the items were specially designed for use in automobiles and had more functions than just fastening, thus classifying them under Heading 8708.00 instead of 7318.10 as held by the Asstt. Collector.2. The Revenue argued that the items were threaded and tapped parts primarily used for fastening, falling under the definition of 'parts of general use'. Referring to Section Note 2 of Section XVII of the Central Excise Tariff Act, it was contended that these items should not be classified under Chapter 87. The Revenue relied on a Supreme Court decision and previous Tribunal orders to support their classification under Chapter 73.3. The Respondents argued that the scheme of classification under the new Tariff was different from the earlier Tariff, emphasizing that the items were parts and accessories of motor vehicles tailored for specific models. They contended that the items should be classified under Heading 8708.00, not 7318.10, as they were not for general use but made to order for specific automobile engines. The Respondents provided extensive evidence, including product catalogues, certificates, and affidavits, to demonstrate the specialized nature of the items.4. Detailed functions of each item were explained by the Respondents to showcase their specific uses in automobiles. The Respondents highlighted that the items were not general-purpose fasteners but were designed for specific functions in different vehicle models. They emphasized that the items were not identifiable as goods of Section XVII and should be classified under Chapter 87 based on their principal use in motor vehicles.5. The Tribunal considered the extensive evidence provided by the Respondents, including product catalogues, certificates, and affidavits, to determine the appropriate classification of the items. It was concluded that the items were more appropriately classifiable under Chapter Heading 8708.00 based on the commercial understanding of the items as parts of motor vehicles and the specific functions they performed. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and confirmed the classification given by the Collector (Appeals).In conclusion, the judgment clarified the classification of items under the Central Excise Tariff Act, highlighting the specialized nature of the items in question and their specific functions in motor vehicles, leading to their classification under Heading 8708.00 instead of 7318.10 as contended by the Revenue.
TaxTMI 