2003 (9) TMI 575

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ugned goods supplied by the appellants as and when required for installing lifts/escalators under contract for assembling and erecting lifts/escalators at site. The Commissioner has classified the impugned goods cleared from the appellant's factory under Heading 84.31 as parts of lifts. The appellants claim that the impugned goods should be classified as lifts/ escalators under Heading 84.28 as lifts applying the Interpretative Rule 2(a). 2. Shri G.E. Vahanvati, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the impugned goods are required to be classified as unassembled lifts in view of the Board's Circular No. 16/89-CX., dated 19-4-1989 as also in terms of Interpretative Rule 2(a). He also cites the fol....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing for the appellants suggests that these parts together should be classified as a lift applying Interpretative Rule 2(a). For the following reasons, we do not think that the parts cleared by the appellants can be classified as a lift under Heading 84.28 :- (1) Before applying Interpretative Rule 2(a), Interpretative Rule 1 has to be applied which requires classification to be determined according to the terms of the headings and relative Chapter/Section notes, if any. In the instant case, the parts, which have been cleared, can be classified according to the terms of the Heading 84.31 which categorically covers parts suitable for use solely or principally with machinery of Heading Nos. 84.25 to 84.30. As such, in the present case ....