2000(02)LCX0037

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

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

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH

Versus

GABRIAL INDIA LTD.

Final Order No. 509/2000-B, dated 24-2-2000 in Appeal No. E/2676/94-B

Advocated By :   Shri Satnam Singh, SDR, for the Appellant.

None, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. - In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the two products bushes and thrust washers which were parts of the machine. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had classified the same under Heading No. 84.83 which covered transmission shafts (including can shafts and crank shafts) and cranks; bearing housings and plain shaft bearings……….”. According to the learned appellate authority, the bushes and thrust washers were covered by the expression ‘plain shaft bearings’. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise who had earlier adjudicated the matter was of the view that these two items were not covered by Heading No. 84.83 and as they were not specifically described in any heading, their classification will be along with the machines of which they were the parts. Earlier the respondents were classifying the same along with the machines and he ordered that their practice of classifying the said products along with the machines of which they were part, was correct. He had directed the assessee to file the revised classification list.

2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the respondents. The notice for today’s hearing had been issued on 20-1-2000. It is an old matter in which the classification list effective from 1-3-1993 is involved. We are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri Satnam Singh, SDR.

3. It is a settled position in law that the parts which are specifically described in any of the particular heading/sub-heading, were to be classifiable in that heading; if they were not so specifically described, then they will go with the machine of which they were the part. If the parts could not be classified, even in this manner, then they were classifiable under the residuary entry. In this case we are only concerned with the two products, bushes and thrust washers. The learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held them to be classifiable as plain shaft bearings. We consider that the bushes and thrust washers are separate products having distinct function and are not covered by the description plain shaft bearings. As they are not specifically described in any particular heading/sub-heading, we consider that their classification with the machines of which they were the parts was correct as held by the adjudicating authority.

4. After taking into account the product description and the tariff structure, we agree with the view taken by the adjudicating authority, the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, now the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise. We set aside the impugned order-in-appeal in so far as these two products are concerned and restore the order-in-original. The appeal filed by the Revenue is thus allowed.

_______

Equivalent 2001 (134) ELT 406 (Tri. - Del.)