2001(06)LCX0006

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

S/Shri V.K. Agrawal, Member (T) and Krishan Kumar, Member (J)

CHAND INDUSTRIES

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-II

Final Order No. 322/2001-B, dated 19-6-2001 in Appeal No. E/921/2001-B

CASE CITED

Collector v. Neoluxe India Pvt. Ltd. — 2000(12)LCX0264 Eq 2001 (128) ELT 0298 (Tribunal) — Referred.......... [Para 2]

Advocated By :   Shri K.L. Handa, Consultant, for the Appellant.

Shri R.D. Negi, SDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - In this appeal, filed by M/s. Chand Industries, the issue involved is whether Bobbins are classifiable under Heading 87.14 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as parts of Motor Vehicles as claimed by the Appellants or under sub-heading 3923.40 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order.

2. Shri K.L. Handa, learned Consultant, submitted that the Bobbins of plastic manufactured by the Appellants are being supplied to M/s. Mik Fuji Yamaha (I) Ltd. who use them in the manufacture of Motor Cycles; that except parts of general use as specified in Note 2 to Section XV all other articles of plastic which are in the nature of components would be classified along with machinery, equipment or apparatus; that bobbins made of plastic are not parts of general use; that as per Note 2(p) to Chapter 39 parts of vehicles are excluded from Chapter 39 and accordingly bobbins are to be classified under Chapter 87 as these are used in the manufacture of motor cycles. The learned Consultant also submitted that the Adjudicating authority has classified Bobbins under sub-heading 3926.90 whereas on appeal filed by them the Commissioner (Appeals) has classified them under sub-heading 3923.90 and as they were not put to notice for bobbins to be classified under the said sub-heading the impugned Order should be set aside. He also relied upon the decision in the case of C.C.E., Bombay v. Neoluxe India Pvt. Ltd., 2000(12)LCX0264 Eq 2001 (128) ELT 0298 (Tribunal).

3. Countering the arguments, Shri R.D. Negi, learned SDR, submitted that Note 2(p) to Chapter 39 excludes only parts of vehicles from falling under Chapter 39; that merely because bobbin is used in the manufacture of motor cycles it cannot be treated as parts of motor cycle; that Note 1(c) to Section XVI clearly provides that bobbins are not covered by Section XVI and it also indicates the Chapter in which the bobbins would fall and the classification of bobbins depends on the materials from which these are made; that as in the present matter it is made of plastic it will be classifiable under Chapter 39. He, further, submitted that Explanatory Note of H.S.N. specifically mentions that bobbins fall under Heading 39.23 and as such classification ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct; that the dispute regarding classification of bobbins was between Chapters 39 and 87 and the Appellants were put to notice that the impugned product was not classifiable under Chapter 87 and was classifiable under Chapters 39 as articles of plastics. There is only change in the Heading and as the Chapter remains the same the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not beyond the scope of appeal.

4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We agree with the submissions of the learned DR that merely because the bobbins are used by the customers of the Appellants in the manufacture of motor cycle they do not become parts of motor cycle. Bobbins are used as a support and it is clearly specified in the Explanatory Notes of H.S.N. that bobbins are classifiable under Heading 39.23. There is nothing on record brought by the Appellants to show that the bobbins made by them are parts of motor vehicles and accordingly Note 2(p) to Chapter 39 will have no application. We also do not find any substance in the submissions of the learned Consultant that they were not put to notice as the dispute was from the beginning whether the bobbins are classifiable as articles of plastics or as parts of motor cycle. In view of this we do not find any merit in the appeal which is rejected.

Equivalent 2001 (133) ELT 409 (Tri. - Del.)

Equivalent 2001 (045) RLT 0620