2007 (8) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th). The appellants claimed classification of the impugned goods under Heading 87.08. The main arguments of the learned Advocate, Shri SN. Sinha Mahapatra appearing for the appellants are that the Excise Tariff must be interpreted differently from the Customs Tariff, the Excise Classification should be based on how the goods are known in commercial parlance as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.S. Auto International Ltd. v. C.C. Excise, Chandigarh - 2003 (152) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), and that Chapter 83 has only been elaborated in the Central Excise Tariff with effect from 28-2-05, whereas no such elaboration was there during the impugned period. 3. The learned DR Shri Y.S. Loni supports the impugned Order and states that the de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al) to support the claim of classification under Heading 79.07. On the other hand, learned S.D.R. cites the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pefco Foundry Chemicals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 565 (S.C.) to state that the impugned goods should be classified as a part of refrigerator under Heading 84.84 since only chrome plating remains to be done. The learned advocate has also cited the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II v. Mukund Ltd. - 2004 (167) E.L.T. 177 (Tri. - Mumbai), in which one of us has opined as follows :- "In view of Rule 2(a) of the General Interpretative Rules (G.I.R.) any reference in a heading to parts of machine includes a reference to in complet....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e metal accessory fittings and mountings, such as are used largely on furniture, doors, windows, coach work, etc. Goods within such general classes remain in this heading even if they are designed for particular uses (e.g., door handles or hinges for automobiles) The heading does not, however, extend to goods forming as essential part of the structure of the article, such as window frames or swivel devices for revolving chairs." He also states that the appellants are willing to pay differential duty if the goods are classified under Heading 83.02. 5. In view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Pefco Foundry (supra), since the impugned goods only require chrome plating, the same can not be classified as a casting under Heading 7....