1997(12)LCX0138

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

S/Shri G.R. Sharma, Member (T) and A.C.C. Unni, Member (J)

AUTOMOTIVE AXLES LTD.

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS

Final Order No. C/3034/97-B2, dated 18-12-1997 in Appeal No. C/1541/90-B2

Cases Quoted

Collector v. Manjushree Minerals Limited — 1992(10)LCX0045 Eq 1993 (064) ELT 0085 (Tribunal) — Referred     [Para 5]

Granite India v. Collector — 1990(05)LCX0079 Eq 1990 (050) ELT 0536 (Tribunal) — Referred                             [Para 5].

Gujarat Steel Tubes Industries v. Collector — 1994(02)LCX0090 Eq 1994 (071) ELT 0756 (Tribunal) — Followed [Paras 6, 13]

Collector v. New Tech Tool Manufacturers Co. — 1996(05)LCX0113 Eq 1997 (090) ELT 0143 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 7]

Advocated By : None, for the Appellant.

Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - The short point for determination in this Appeal is whether the imported goods are classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 8207.90 as claimed by the Appellants or they were classifiable under Chapter Heading 8208.10, read with Chapter sub-heading 8461.40 as held by the Department and whether they will be assessed under Notification No. 69/87 or under Notification No. 68/87.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants imported gear cutting tools which were assessed under Chapter Heading 98.06, read with Notification No. 69/87. Subsequently, a demand was raised reclassifying the goods under Chapter Heading 8208.10 read with Chapter Heading 84.61 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1985 and the duty short levied amounting to Rs. 83,790/- was confirmed. The Asstt. Collector in the Order-in-Original held that the goods are classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 8208.10 read with 8461.40. In appeal, the ld. Collector (Appeals) held that the goods shall be classifiable under Chapter Heading 8208.10 read with Chapter Heading 8461.40 and that Notification No. 69/87 would not be applicable, but assessment would be under Customs Notification No. 68/87. Against this Order, the Appellants have filed the captioned appeal. The appellants have also requested that the appeal may be decided on merits.

3. Shri S.N. Ojha, the ld. JDR appearing for the Respondent Commissioner, submits that roughing blades under importation are required to be assembled on to a mounting frame before they can be used for gear cutting and, therefore, they have to be imported necessarily in sets. He submits that it is the mounted blades that can be regarded as an interchangeable tool. The ld. DR submits that the blade under importation in the present case are not interchangeable and would be appropriately classifiable under Chapter Heading 8208.10. He submits that these blades are parts of machinery falling under Chapter Heading 8461.40. Accordingly, Tariff Heading 98.06 would be attracted. He submits that the classification of the item under importation being under Chapter Heading 82, Customs Notification No. 69/87 would not be applicable and the assessment would have to be done under Customs Notification No. 68/97 (sic).

4. The Appellants, in their written submissions dated 15-3-1997, have submitted that they had filed an appeal on 9-2-1990 with the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras on the same item Bevel gear cutting tools; that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the blades (Gear cutting tools) imported are appropriately classifiable under Heading 8207.90. It has been submitted by the Appellants that they had accepted this Order and, therefore, the goods may be classified under this Chapter Heading 8207.90.

5. The ld. DR also cited and relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Collector, Customs v. Manjushree Minerals Limited [1993 (064) ELT 85] in which the Tribunal held that the imported goods being blade body to which cutting instrument is attached. It is classifiable under Chapter Heading 82.01/04. The ld. DR submitted that the classification of gang saw blades came up for decision before the Tribunal in the case of Granite India v. C.C.E. [1990 (050) ELT 536]. In this case, the Tribunal held that specific entry under Chapter Heading 82.01/04 is blades for hand machine saws. Though Chapter Heading 82 includes tools which, apart from certain specific exceptions, are used in the hand; that the tariff heading is very specific to state that gang-saw blades for hand or machine saws are classifiable under Chapter Heading 82.01/04.

6. The ld. DR also referred to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Gujarat Steel Tubes Industries v. C.C., Bombay [1994 (071) ELT 756], wherein the Tribunal, by a majority judgment, held that the circular saw blades being parts of machinery under Chapter Heading 84 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, though classifiable under Chapter Heading 98.06, yet they do not cease to be tools classifiable under Chapter Heading 82 ibid for the purpose of Notification No. 69/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987; that the benefit of this notification excluded by virtue of Sl. No. (xi) of Proviso.

7. The ld. DR submitted that this Tribunal in the case of C.C. v. New Tech Tool Manufacturers [1997 (090) ELT 143] held that the goods for classification are carbide type circular saws; that the description of the item itself makes it plain that it is not a knife or blade, but a circular saw; that it is used as a cutting appliance, hence it clearly fits in the description of sub-heading 8202.20.

8. The ld. DR submitted that these are the various decisions on the subject and, therefore, prayed that the goods may be classified under Chapter Heading 8208.10.

9. Heard the submissions of ld. DR. Perused the written submissions made by the Appellants and the evidence on record. For the sake of proper appreciation, we reproduce the Tariff Entry 82.07 and 82.08 :

10. On careful study of the imported material, the technical literature and the write-up submitted by the Appellants, clearly indicate that the imported item is not an interchangeable tool. They are roughing blades. These blades are required to be mounted on the Gear cutting apparatus for use as Gear cutting tools.

11. The technical literature as well as the catalogue and the description of the goods given in the Bill of Entry leaves no ground to accept that the roughing blades imported by the Appellants are interchangeable tools. They are roughing blades which are mounted on to a Gear cutting apparatus to be used as gear cutting tools. Therefore, they have rightly been classified under Chapter Heading 8208.10.

12. The blades in he instant case are for metal working, therefore, the proper heading has rightly been held as 8208.10. Further, Chapter Note (1) on page 1111 of the Explanatory Notes to HSN provides “The heading includes knives or cutting blades for metal working (a) Blades and knives for fitting into tools for machine tools, e.g. into reamers or milling cutters; (b) Blades for guillotine-type shears or for machine shears for cutting sheet metal, wire, bars, etc.” The heading of this note clearly indicates that roughing blades for gear cutting will appropriately be classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 8208.10.

13. This Tribunal, in the case of M/s. Gujarat Steel Tubes Industries, cited supra, observed that “once the goods are classified under Chapter Heading 84 or Chapter Heading 98, they ceased to be goods falling under Chapter 82; such a view would render the provisions of Notification No. 69/87 inoperative; that the tools though classifiable under Chapter Heading 98.06, do not cease to be tools classifiable under Chapter Heading 82 for the purpose of Notification No. 69/87. Though, the result, in this case, is that, by virtue of Sl. No. (xi) of the Proviso, such tools get excluded from the benefit of the Notification. In view of the foregoing and in the light of the various admitted facts, the goods are rightly classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 98.06 but are not eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 69/87-Cus.” Following the ratio of that Judgment of the Tribunal, we hold that the goods will not be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 69/87-Cus.

14. In view of the above findings, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. Collector (Appeals). In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.

______

Equivalent 1998 (100) ELT 348 (Tribunal)