Advocated By :   Shri R.K. Roy, JDR, for the Appellant.

Shri N. Samaddar, Financial Controller, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (T)]. - The dispute involved in the present appeal is as regards the correct classification of the respondents’ final product - "Electro Magnetic Feeder". The appellants in their classification list had claimed the classification of the said product under Heading 8479.00. vide show cause notice dated 1-4-1992 they were asked to show cause as to why the said item should not be classified under Heading 8505.00. The said show cause notice was adjudicated by the Asstt. Commissioner who agreed with the respondents and held the correct classification to be under Heading 8479.00. The Revenue filed an appeal against the above order. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with the view of the respondents. Hence the present appeal.

2. We have heard Shri R.K. Roy, ld. JDR, for the Revenue and Shri N. Samaddar, Financial Controller, for the respondents.

3. To appreciate the reasons adopted by the Asstt. Commissioner deciding the classification under Heading 8479.00, we think it fit to reproduce his findings :-

The chapter sub-heading 85.05 relates to electro-magnet. But "electro magnetic vibratory feeder" is not an electro magnet and it does not function as permanent magnet also. But make and break function is being made by the feeder machine. As the name indicates the machine is used for feeding of materials in a controlled manner to different machines for subsequent processing. And by this it creates a vibration in line with supply cycles. It will not be appropriate to classify the feeder machine under Heading 85.05 as because its parts and accessory such as coil/feeder coil has been classified under the said heading. The section note 2(b) of Section XVI, is very clear in this respect which says that when the parts which are not specifically classified under a particular tariff heading are to be classified under the tariff heading of the machine to which it relates and accordingly since the feeder machine has not been specifically classified elsewhere in chapter 84 and it has been individual function, I think, it should be rightly classified under chapter sub-heading 84.79, instead of under Heading 84.05 as contended in the notice. The “conversion kit” is nothing but an assembly of different parts such as vertical shaft, extension shaft, gear reduction unit, bearing and bearing housing, etc., which are specifically mentioned under tariff heading 84.83 attracting central excise duty @ 20% adv.. It is not classified as such in the Tariff. Moreover, its major parts are classified under Heading 84.83. Therefore I think the conversion kit should be classified under chapter sub-heading No. 8483.00, attracting central excise duty @ 20% adv.. The matter has been discussed with the representative of the assessee during personal hearing and they have agreed that this should be classified prospectively under Heading 8483.00 and have agreed to pay duty @ 20% adv. on the said product from now onwards. Accordingly, the product is classified under chapter heading 8483.00. In respect of “coil/feeder coil” it is noticed that in the earlier classification list the product has been classified under chapter sub-heading 8505.00 and the assessee are paying duty @ 20% adv. on the said product under chapter heading 8505.00 under protest. And the matter is under consideration of Collector (Appeals), I therefore, being agreed with the contention of the show cause notice, classify the product under chapter sub-heading No. 8505.00. Regarding “internal circlip” the assessee have agreed for its classification under chapter heading 7318.21, as because it has been specifically classified in the central excise tariff. Accordingly the product is being classified under chapter sub-heading No. 7318.21. The “Excitor Unit or Magnetic unit" has been classified under chapter heading 8479.00 as parts of vibratory feeder machine. But in the notice it has been desired to be classified under chapter heading 8505 attracting duty @ 20% adv. as electro magnet but excitor unit or magnetic unit is not an electro magnet, are not a permanent magnet also. Therefore, it should not be classified under chapter heading 8505 as contended. Accordingly, as per section note 2(b) of Section XVI it should be classified along with the machine under chapter heading 8479.00.

4. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with the Asstt. Commissioner on the basis of the following reasoning -

I find that the point to be resolved in case of classification of electromagnetic vibrating feeder is whether the same is a mechanical device or an electrical appliance. From the literature submitted by the respondent I observed that the said device is used to discharge bulk solids from bins, and the same operates on the micro-throw principle. Electromagnetic drives set system in vibration. From the application and operation of the device it is abundantly clear that the same is a mechanical device, and being not elsewhere classified is rightly classified under Heading No. 84.79. This classification was also earlier made and also held in other collectorate. Further, in view of Note 2(b) of Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 Exciter unit/Magnetic unit is also rightly classified under Heading No. 84.79. Therefore I am not inclined to interfere into the order passed by the lower authority.

5. The Revenue in their memo of appeal have contended in their grounds that the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issue on the basis of the literature supplied on the assessee instead of consulting HSN explanatory notes. This is the sole ground for challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). We are not in agreement with the same inasmuch as the literature of the product to be classified is the basic document to be consulted for appreciating the technical aspect of the item and the function it performs. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly consulted the literature and arrived at a finding that the product in question is a mechanical device. The Revenue has not challenged the above finding of fact by the Commissioner (Appeals). As such we do not find any merits in the Revenue's appeal and reject the same.