TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 231
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the following products were classified by the appellant as medical appliances: (i) Autoclave; (ii) Glass Bead Sterilizer; (iii) Steam Clave and (iv) Hot Air Sterilizer. The appellant classified these products as medical equipment under Central Excise Tariff Heading 9018.00 (up to February, 2005) and 98184900 (from March, 2005 onwards) and discharged duty @ 4% for the period August 2002 to February 2003 and 8% for the period March 2003 to March 2007 by availing benefit of Notification No.10/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 (Sl. No. 43) and Notification No. 10/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003 (Sl. No. 43) respectively. Audit officers felt that the above goods do not qualify as medical equipment and should be classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Heading 8419.10 (up to February, 2005) and 8419.2010 (from March, 2005). Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to re-classify the above four goods and assess them to duty @ 16% ad valorem as applicable. It was also alleged in the show cause notice that the assessee had suppressed the fact of manufacture and clearance of these products from the Department with an intention to evade pay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Revenue that these being equipments meant for sterilization are correctly classifiable under 8419. The relevant entries in the Central Excise Tariff Heading are as follows: 8419 Machinery, plant or laboratory equipment whether or not electrically heated (excluding furnaces, ovens and other equipment of heading 8514), for the treatment of materials by a process involving a change of temperature such as heating, cooking of temperature such as heating, cooking, roasting, distilling, rectifying, sterilising, pasteurising, steaming, drying, evaporating, vaporising, condensing, or cooling, other than machinery or plant of a kind used for domestic purposes; instantaneous or storage water heaters, non-electric. 9018 Instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences, including scientigraphic apparatus, other electro medical apparatus and sight testing instruments." 8. According to the appellant 8419 covers machinery, plant or laboratory equipments and not medical equipment. Goods should be classified according to the common parlance understanding and the equipment which it had manufactu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e High Court fell into the error of overlooking the fact that the structure of the Central Excise Tariff is based on the internationally accepted nomenclature found in the HSN and, therefore, any dispute relating to tariff classification must, as far as possible, be resolved with reference to the nomenclature indicated by the HSN unless there be an express different intention indicated by the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 itself. The definition of a term in the ISI Glossary, which has a different purpose, cannot, in case of a conflict, override the clear indication of the meaning of an identical expression in the same context in the HSN. In the HSN, block board is included within the meaning of the expression "similar laminated wood" in the same context of classification of block board. Since the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 is enacted on the basis and pattern of the HSN, the same expression used in the Act must, as far as practicable, be construed to have the meaning which is expressly given to it in the HSN when there is no indication in the Indian Tariff of a different intention." 11. Learned Departmental Representative has referred to the Harmonised System of Nome....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant's assertion that Articles falling under Chapter 90 automatically get excluded from Section XVI (which includes Chapter 84) as per Section note 1(m), learned Departmental Representative asserts that since the goods in question do not fall under Chapter 90 but fall under Chapter 84, this section note does not come to the aid of the appellant. On the third argument of the appellant that the later entry should prevail, learned Departmental Representative submits that the question of later entry will come only if there are two equally applicable entries. 8419 is the entry which specifically covers sterilizers including medical, surgical sterilizer and Autoclaves such as ones manufactured by the appellant. On the other hand, Heading 9018 deals with instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences, including scientigraphic apparatus, and other electro medical apparatus and sight testing instrument. The Autoclaves in question are not medical equipment but are sterilizing equipment which are being used by and designed for dentists. Merely because they are being used by dentists they do not become medical equipment. Even if there is any ambiguity,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nations of that material or substance with other materials or substances. Any reference to goods of a given material or substance shall be taken to include a reference to goods consisting wholly or partly of such material or substance. The classification of goods consisting of more than one material or substance shall be according to the principles of rule 3. 3. When by application of rule 2(b) or for any other reason, goodsare, prima facie, classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be effected as follows (a) the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. However, when two or more headings each refer to part only of the materials or substances contained in mixed or composite goods or to part only of the items in a set put up for retail sale, those headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to those goods, even if one of them gives a more complete or precise description of the goods. (b) mixtures, composite goods consisting of different materials or made up of different components, and goods put up in sets for retail sale, which cannot be cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Chapter 90, they get excluded from Section XVI (and therefore, Chapter 84). 16. We are unable to agree with this submission. The entire dispute is whether the goods in dispute fall under Chapter 90 at all. If it is accepted that they fall under Chapter 90, nothing remains to be decided. Since the question as to whether the goods fall under Chapter 90 at all is in dispute, Section note 1(m) to Section XVI does not come to the aid of the appellant. 17. Rule 2 deals with incomplete and unfinished articles and articles mixed with other articles and is not relevant to this case. Rule 3(a) states that a specific description prevails over the general description. According to the appellant, this Rule is in its favour because 'Dental equipment' is a more specific description over 'autoclaves and sterilizing equipment'. According to the Revenue, 'Sterilizing equipment' is a more specific description of the nature of the goods and not 'Dental equipment'. We find that this Rule does not resolve the issue in favour of either side. Rule 3(b) deals with composite articles and hence is irrelevant to this case. Rule 3(c) states that if there are two or more equally valid classification, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld have remained unknown to the department. Accordingly, it appears that the assessee had suppressed the facts of manufacture and clearance of the above said products from the department with an intention to evade payment of appropriate Central Excise duty and hence the extended period in terms of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is invocable in this case." 21. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that these goods were being manufactured by them for a long time and under Rule 173B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 a declaration had to be made and the form of classification list of goods manufactured by them. The appellant had filed such a declaration on 02.04.2001 which was duly acknowledged by the department on 03.04.2001. Therefore, the allegation that the appellant had not declared the manufacture of these products to the Revenue is factually incorrect. Learned Counsel has also placed a few copies of the invoices showing that the goods were manufactured and were sold describing them correctly in the invoices. He further asserts that there is no special requirement to again declare the manufacture of each product of the Department. As far as the excis....