1.
Classification depends upon usage/function of the product. The following judgement of Supreme Court clears the air:-
Car locking system combined with alarm - Classifiable under Customs Tariff sub-heading 8301.20 (2) Classification of goods - Combination of two products - Classification to be determined by main part of combination (3) Classification of goods - Precedent - Goods being combination of two products, decision which is on only one of those products cannot be cited as precedent
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh on 8-10-2002 after condoning the delay dismissed the Civil Appeal No. 6604 of 2002 (C.A. No. D17339 of 2002) filed by Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, against CEGAT Order Nos. 110/2002-B, dated 26-2-2002 and reported in 2002 (142) E.L.T. 98 (Tri. - Del.) = 2002 (2) TMI 174 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI (Future Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner). While dismissing the Appeal, the Supreme Court passed following order :-
“Delay condoned.
The appeal is dismissed.”
The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that, car locking system combined with alarm is classifiable under sub-heading 8301.20 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and not under sub-heading 8531.20 ibid. It was also held that classification is to be determined by the main part of the combination.
The Tribunal further held that in case of classification of combined products, classification is to be determined by the main part of combination.
The Tribunal also held that, impugned goods being combination of two products, decision which is on only one of those products cannot be cited as precedent.
[Commissioner v. Future Innovations Pvt. Ltd.- 2003 (153) E.L.T. A297 (S.C.) = 2002 (10) TMI 799 - SUPREME COURT ]