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>Product 'Switch Fuse Unit' Properly Classified Under Sub-heading 8537. Technical Opinions and Case Law Considered.</h1> <h3>SIEMENS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., AURANGABAD</h3> SIEMENS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., AURANGABAD - 2001 (133) E.L.T. 751 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues: Classification of the product 'Switch Fuse Unit' under sub-heading 8537 or 8536.90Classification Issue:The primary issue in this appeal is the classification of the product 'Switch Fuse Unit.' The assessee claimed classification under sub-heading 8537, while the department classified it under sub-heading 8536.90. The classification under 8536.90 pertains to 'Others,' whereas 8537 covers boards, panels, consoles, desks, cabinets, and other bases equipped with multiple apparatus for electric control or distribution of electricity. The assembly in question consists of three fuses with a switch, indicating a combination of a switching device and a protective device. The technical opinion from the Victoria Jubilee Technical Institute supported the classification under 8537. The Commissioner (Appeals) recognized the integration of two different apparatus into one unit but did not consider it as an assembly, leading to a classification issue.Fuse Element Consideration:A significant aspect of the case was the absence of the fuse element supplied along with the switches in the product. Despite this absence, it was argued that the character of the fuse assembly remained unchanged. The definition of a fuse as an expandable device for opening an electric circuit when the current exceeds a rated value was highlighted to support the argument that the absence of the fuse element did not alter the nature of the assembly.Precedent and Case Law Analysis:The Tribunal referred to previous decisions involving similar products, such as Havell's Industries v. Collector of Central Excise and Collector of Central Excise v. V.S. Engineers, where the products were classified under Heading 85.37. These judgments were upheld by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal found the classification under 8537 appropriate based on the examination of literature, functions of the disputed unit, and relevant case law. The Commissioner's differentiation of the Havell's Industries judgment was noted but not accepted in the final decision.Conclusion:After thorough analysis of the product, technical opinions, absence of the fuse element, and relevant case law, the Tribunal concluded that the classification of the disputed product under sub-heading 8537 was appropriate. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted if applicable.
TaxTMI 