2011(07)LCX0294

IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI [COURT NO. Ill]

S/Shri S.S. Kang, Vice-President and Mathew John, Member (T)

Knorr Bremse India Pvt. Ltd.

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi

Final Order No. C/363/201KPB), dated 14-7-2011 in Appeal No. C/414/2007 (DB)

Advocated By -

Shri U.K. Tyagi, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri R.K. Gupta, SDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. -

Heard both sides. Appellant has filed this appeal against impugned order whereby Revenue classified the following parts of railway break under respective headings :

2. We notice from the copy of Bill of Entry submitted that a few other items were also classified in headings other than heading 8607 which was claimed by the importer.


3. The contention of the Appellant is that the Indian Railway placed an order with them for supply of 42 sets of railway break and the Appellant imported such goods into India and one bill of entry was filed for 42 complete sets of railway break and the Appellant claimed classification under sub-heading 8607 for the Customs Tariff. The Revenue accepted the above mentioned classification in respect of certain parts. But Revenue did not accept the classification claimed by the Appellant in respect of the items mentioned in para 1 above and a few more items as per Bill of Entry. The contention of the Appellant is that the parts in question are not items for general use and they are specifically used as parts of railway break and "Parts for Railway or Tramway, Locomotives or Rolling Stock" are covered under heading 8607 of the Customs Tariff.


4. Ld. SDR relied upon Note 2 of Section XV of Customs Tariff to submit that one of the items is "Part of General use" since it falls under Chapter Heading 7307 of the Tariff. As per the above Note and Note 1(g) of Section XVI that item can be classified under Heading 7307 only..


5. We find that none of the items listed in the table given on page 2 of the Order-In-Appeal qualifies as "parts of general use" as per the definition in Note 2 of Section XV of the Customs Tariff Act. We note only one item of such category in the Bill of Entry which is "Nuts" falling under Heading 7307.


6. We find that appellant made import of 42 complete sets of Railway Break and as per the contention of the appellant these were complete break system and no further manufacturing/processing was required. We find that Rule 2(a) of General Rules of Interpretation to First Schedule to the Customs Tariff reads as under:

2. (a) Any reference in a heading to an article shall be taken to include a reference to that article incomplete or unfinished, provided that, as presented, the incomplete or unfinished article has the essential character of the complete or finished article. It shall also be taken to include a reference to that article complete or finished (or falling to be classified as complete or finished by virtue of this rule), presented unassembled or dis-assembled.


7. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order also held that the parts in question may find their use in the railway break. The items in question are parts of railway breaks imported in unassembled conditions and such parts are specifically covered under sub-heading 8607 of the Customs Tariff. Therefore, in view of the above rule and the specific heading in the Tariff, we find merit in the contention of the appellant. Chapter Note 1(g) of Section XVI read with Note 2 of Section XV will apply when such parts alone are imported. The impugned goods are classifiable under Heading 8607 of the Customs Tariff. The impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed.

(Order dictated in the open Court)

Equivalent 2013 (292) ELT 0238 (Tri. - Del.)