1997(07)LCX0099

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

S/Shri Lajja Ram, Member (T) and S.S. Kang, Member (J)

MIPCO SEAMLESS RINGS (GUJARAT) LTD.

Versus

COLLECTOR OF C. EX., BOMBAY

Final Order No. E/1255/97-B, dated 8-7-1997 in Appeal No. E/2799/89-B1

Advocated By : None, for the Appellants.

Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. - In this appeal filed by M/s. Mipco Seamless Rings (Gujarat) Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of the machined seamless rings used in the manufacture of ball or rolling bearings. The appellants have sought classification of these rings under Heading No. 73.08 of the Tariff as “other articles of iron and steel”. The Revenue had classified the same under Heading No. 84.82 as parts suitable for use solely or principally with the ball or roller bearings.

2. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits. There is no dispute that the seamless rings machined were used by the appellants themselves in the manufacture of ball and roller bearings. Some parts of their production was sold outside manufacturers of the ball/roller bearings. In these proceedings, we are concerned only with the classification of those seamless ring machined which were sold to the manufacturer of bearings. Under Section Note (2) of Section XVI of the tariff, the parts which are not specifically included in heading of Chapter 84 or Chapter 85 if suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine were to be classified with the machine of that kind. It has been clarified in Section Note (5) of the Section XVI that the expression “machine” means any machine, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus or appliances cited under the heading of Chapter 84 or Chapter 85. By virtue of this section note, extended meaning has been given to the expression “machine”. As balls and roller bearing were cited in the Heading 84.82 for the purpose of the notes under Section XVI they were included under the expression “machine”. Accordingly their parts were to be classified in the light of Section Note (2) of the said Section XVI.

3. Insofar as seamless rings machined used captively by the appellants in the manufacturer of bearing, they were taken as part of the ball or roller bearing. The goods which were supplied to outside manufacturers could not be classified differently as their use, characteristics remained the same.

4. The appellants had sought classification of their product seamless ring machined under Heading No. 73.08 which covered other articles of iron or steel. We find that Heading No. 73.08 cover such items as structures, plates, rods, angles, etc. for use in the structures, nail staples, rivets, sewing needles etc. As the goods were specifically designed and manufactured for use in the manufacture of bearing, we consider that their classification as “other articles of iron or steel” was not proper. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay had observed that the seamless ring machined manufactured by the appellant were specifically meant for the manufacturer of bearings and not for the manufacturers of any other machinery. He had ruled out the alternative classification under sub-heading 8485.90 which was in the nature of residuary entry under Chapter 84 and covered machinery parts not containing electric connectors, insulators, coils, contacts or other electrical features not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 84. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay and as a result the appeal is rejected.

Equivalent 1997 (95) ELT 668 (Tribunal)