Implication of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Westinghouse Saxby Farmer Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e divergent practices arisen in assessment of 'automobile parts' under the Customs Tariff, after the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment has been delivered in the case of M/s Westinghouse Saxby Farmer Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata. 2. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the 'relays' are classifiable as parts of 'railway signalling equipment', under Heading 8608 of the Central Excise Tariff. In holding so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given precedence to the 'sole or principal use' test of Section Note 3 over the Note 2(f) to Section XVII which specifically excluded 'electric equipment' from being classified under Section XVII, whether or not it is identifiable as being for the goods of that Section. 3....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed specifically solely or principally with the armoured vehicles of Chapter Heading 8710, they are classifiable under Chapter Heading 8536.90 only as held by the adjudicating authority" C. By taking cognizance of the conditions mentioned in the HSN explanatory notes, the exclusionary clause under Note 2 has been given precedence over the sole or principal use of the items. It was recognized that since one of the conditions e of the exclusion mentioned in Note 2 (Condition (a)) was not met, the said goods could not be classified under chapter 87. 3.2 CCE Delhi Vs Uni Products Ltd-2020(372) ELT-465(SC)-2020 A. In this judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has once again taken cognizance of the reference to 'parts and accessories' under t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. 6. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Westinghouse Saxby judgement itself, has acknowledged the complexity of the issue and has pointed to the undesirability of generalising the decisions of one case to others. The Honble Court, has referred to the observations made in its own judgement in the case of "A. Nagaraju Bros Vs. State of A.P, thus "…..there is no one single universal test in these matters. The several decided cases drive home this truth quite eloquently. ….There may be cases, particularly in the case of new products, where this test may not be appropriate. In such cases, other tests like the test of predominance, either by weight or value or on some other basis may have to be applied. It is indeed not ....