2001(03)LCX0149
IN THE CEGAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE
S/Shri G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J) and S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
B.D.K. PROCESS CONTROL (P) LTD.
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE
Final Order No. 448/2001, dated 15-3-2001 in Appeal No. E/2324/98
CASE CITED
Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. v. Collector — 1985(06)LCX0010 Eq 1985 (022) ELT 0074 (Tribunal) — Distinguished [Para 2(d)]
Advocated By : Shri K.S. Ravi Shankar, C.A., for the Appellant.
Smt. Radha Arun, SDR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member(T)]. - This appeal has been filed against the classification of the product “Rubber Expansion Joint" under Heading 4009.92 by the lower authorities and not under 4016.92 as claimed by the appellants.
2. We have heard both sides and considered the matter and find -
(a) The entity under classification dispute is called “Rubber Expansion Joint”. The use and function as submitted by the appellants and recorded by the original authority is -
“During the personal hearing he explained the functioning of the Rubber Expansion Joint manufactured by them. He amplified that the main function of the rubber expansion joint is to control vibrations during the process where the pipelines are used. The rubber expansion joint is round object having round hole in the middle having 3 segments. One end of the pipeline is bound to one end of the round hole and other end of the hole joined to the other pipeline. Though the material is passed through the pipeline it also passes through Rubber Expansion Joint. The main function of the Rubber Expansion Joint is only to control the vibrations, otherwise a continuous pipeline could do for carrying out the process at much cheaper expenditure......”
A plain reading of the above would indicate to us that the entity under classification conveys liquids through it, functions as a special designed article to save the pipeline from vibrations and therefore to be a fitting for the tube, pipes, etc. We are reinforced in our view by the subsequent sentence recorded as submission of the appellant in the paragraph extracted hereinabove which is -
“....... He also explained that Rubber Expansion Joint also takes care of expansion and contraction due to variations in temperature in the pipeline ....”
Therefore, we have no hesitation to accept that besides the functional designs to absorb vibrations, the entity is designed to be a ‘joint fitting’ between the two pipes and serves not only conveying of the product in the pipe but also preserving the integrity of the joint in pipelines from assaults of temperature.
(b) After determining the nature of entity, which is not being questioned by the appellants before us, we find that, Heading 4009 reads as -
“Tubes, pipes and hoses of valcanised rubber other than hard rubber, with or without their fittings (for example, joints, elbows, flanges)”
While alternate claimed entry 4076.92 reads ‘Other Articles of vulcanised rubber other than hard rubber.’ Since we find that Tubes with or without fittings would be classified under 4009, “fittings” by themselves would also be classified under 4009 as the alternative classification under 4016.92 is a residuary entry of 4016. A specific entry mentioning and covering “joints for pipes” under 4009 is to be preferred over a generic entry of “Articles of valcanised rubber”, and that too a six-digit entry for “others” therein. We would uphold the classification of the subject entry under 4009 of CET Act, 1985.
(c) We have considered the grounds in the appeal that the findings, that reliance is not competing on a finding that “goods retain the essential character of piping or tubing through which matter flows. This is based on the admitted position by the Appellants that matter does flow through it, and that even if it has additional function of protection of vibrations, which may be the main function, as claimed by the appellant, the fact that it is a “fitting for joints” to effect continuous flow of material through the pipeline and effectively seals the joints from temperature fluctuations, induce us to conclude that the entity is “essentially designed for fitting on pipe joints”. Therefore, the plea of appellant relying upon following HSN notes under 4016 -
“(a) Pump rotors and moulds; other articles for technical uses (including parts and accessories of machines and appliances of Section XVI and of instruments and apparatus of Chapter 90).”
will not help the case of appellants for classification under 4016 since the use is not technical but that as a special “fitting-joint” for a pipe and not any machine apparatus etc. Considering this purpose, function, we therefore find no grounds in the present appeal to upset the classification of the entity. ‘Rubber Expansion Joint for pipes’ to be under 4004.92 as arrived at by the lower authorities.
(d) The decision in the case of [1985(06)LCX0010 Eq 1985 (022) ELT 0074 (Tri.)] relied upon is not in this product is on I.C. Engine Parts and is therefore not applicable.
3. In view of our findings, classification under 4009.92 is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
Equivalent 2001 (131) ELT 353 (Tri. - Bang.)
Equivalent 2001 (045) RLT 0186