2005(09)LCX0289

IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

S/Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) and T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)

Ashok Leyland

Versus

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Final Order Nos. 1284-1285/2005, dated 16-9-2005 in Appeal Nos. C/C-5/99 and C/398/99

Cases Quoted -

Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Collector -1994(09)LCX0121 Eq 1994 (074) ELT 0599 (Tribunal) - Relied on-[Para 4]

Advocated By -

Shri T.S. Balasubramanian, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri B.L Meena, SDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) (Oral)]. -

In both these appeals, the issue raised is one and the same. Hence these appeals are taken up together for disposal.


2. The appellants imported what is known as "Centre bearing assembly" consisting of bearing housing incorporating ball bearing along with carrier, top retainer, rubber cushion, bearing retainer and outer flinger. This assembly is fitted between front & rear frame propeller shaft of commercial vehicles. The appellants contend that the impugned goods are classifiable under heading 84.83 of the Customs Tariff Act. According to them, the item is specifically mentioned therein. According to the lower authorities, these goods form part of transmission system of motor vehicle. As per Note 2(e) to Section XVII of the Customs Tariff Schedule, articles falling under heading 84.83 would not be considered as parts of motor vehicles if such articles are integral part of engines. In the present case, the goods are not integral parts of engines. In other words, the goods are not engine transmission parts of motor vehicles in view of Note 2(e) and they should be correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff heading 8708.99 and CET heading 8708.00 Exclusion Note (2) to heading 8433 in the HSN also supports this view. According to this note, transmission equipment designed for use solely or principally for vehicles is excluded from CET heading 84.83 unless such equipment is integral parts of vehicle engines. The appellants in these appeals also challenged findings of the lower authorities.


3. Shri T.S. Balasubramnian, learned Counsel appeared for the appellants and Shri B.L. Meena, learned SDR for the Revenue.


4. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. Section note 2(e) of Section XVII and explanatory note to heading 84.83 and CET 87.08 incorporates propeller shaft of commercial vehicles under heading 8708.99 of Customs Tariff Act. The imported items being parts of propeller shaft are classifiable under the same heading as parts of machine as held by the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. CCE, Pune reported in 1994 (074) ELT 599. These goods are classifiable under heading 8708.99 of Customs Tariff Act, and 8708.00 of the CETA. During the hearing, the learned Counsel could not give any adequate justification for the alternative classification under heading 84.33. The reasoning of the lower authorities is acceptable. In the circumstances, we reject the appeals.

(Operative portion of this order was pronounced in the open Court on 16-9-2005)

Equivalent 2006 (196) ELT 0321 (Tri. - Chennai)