Transformer installation equipment not treated as a machine part; Heading 86.07 classification and prior-period demand sustained.

Roller bracket assembly used only to move transformers during installation was not treated as a transformer part, because Note 2 to Section XVI applies only where the item is established as a part of a machine under Chapters 84 or 85; classification under Heading 85.04 therefore failed and Heading 86.07 was sustained. The prior-period demand was not defeated by the approved classification list objection, because the assessee had been put on notice of classification under Heading 86.07 and the relevant classification list from 1-3-1993 was not approved by the proper officer. The appeal failed on both classification and demand-related objections.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether roller bracket assembly used for movement of transformers at installation site was classifiable under Heading 85.04 as a part of transformer or under Heading 86.07 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. (ii) Whether the demand could be sustained for the prior period in view of the approved classification list and the show-cause notice.

Issue (i): Whether roller bracket assembly used for movement of transformers at installation site was classifiable under Heading 85.04 as a part of transformer or under Heading 86.07 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: The product was admitted to be used only to facilitate movement of transformers from one place to another during installation. On that basis, it was not a part of the transformer itself. Note 2 to Section XVI applies only where the item is established to be a part of a machine classifiable under Chapter 84 or 85. Since the assembly was not a transformer part, it could not be classified under Heading 85.04. The classification adopted under Heading 86.07 was therefore sustained.

Conclusion: The classification under Heading 86.07 was correct and the claim for Heading 85.04 failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand could be sustained for the prior period in view of the approved classification list and the show-cause notice.

Analysis: The contention that no tariff heading was mentioned in the show-cause notice was rejected because the assessee had been put on notice regarding classification under Heading 86.07, including through the hearing before the Assistant Collector. The reliance on the decision in Cotspun was found inapplicable because the classification list from 1-3-1993 had not been approved by the proper officer.

Conclusion: The prior-period demand was not invalidated on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on both classification and consequential demand-related objections, and the order classifying the goods under Heading 86.07 was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: An item used only to facilitate movement of equipment during installation is not a part of the equipment for tariff classification, and approval-related objections do not defeat demand where the relevant classification list was not approved by the proper officer.

---