2000(12)LCX0144

in the cegat, west zonal bench, mumbai

S/Shri J.H. Joglekar, Member (T) and G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J)

SIEMENS LTD.

Versus

COMMR. OF C. EX., AURANGABAD

Order No. 3831/2000-WZB/C-II, dated 18-12-2000 in Appeal No. E/712-R/99-Mum.

Cases Quoted

Collector v. V.S. Engineers — 1993 (68) ELT 899 (Tribunal) — Relied on.......................... [Para 5]

Havell’s Industries v. Collector — 1993 (68) ELT 353 (Tribunal) — Relied on................... [Para 5]

Advocated By :   Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate, for the Appellant.

[Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - The issue for consideration in this appeal is of the classification of the product “Switch Fuse Unit”. The assessees claimed classification under sub-heading 8537. The department classified these products under sub-heading 8536.90. For ease or reference the two entities are reproduced below :

2. Heading 85.36 covers individual apparatus these can be :

(i)  for Switching

(ii) protecting electrical circuits or

(iii) for making connections to; or in electrical circuits.

When the apparatus with such individuals functions are put together mounted on a Board or Panel or similar base such a combination would merit classification under Heading 85.37.

3. We have seen graphic presentation of the apparatus on record. The assembly has three fuses with a switch. Thus there is combination of a switching device and a protective device. Before the original authorities the assessees had produced trade opinion as well as technical opinion from the Victoria Jubilee Technical Institute. In the opinion it was certified that the assessment would be under Heading 8537. The expert in the opinion noted that the fuse link had not been provided. The opinion stated that it was common practice not to fix up any fuse link in the mechanism so that the user could select the lowest possible fuse rating. The Assistant Commissioner referred to section Note 4 to Section XVI in arriving at the decision against the assessee. This note speak of question of classification either under Chapter 84 or 85 and was not relevant to the proceedings before him. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted that the subject goods had two different apparatus integrated into one unit. He however did not accept the product as an assembly. He classified it at one product performing two functions. We find that the Commissioner’s observation does not bring out what led to this findings. It was clearly a control unit performing two functions.

4. The show cause notice made relevant observations that the fuse units were not supplied along with the switches. Neither the Assistant Collector nor the Collector (Appeals) dwelt on this point. We however find that the absence of the fuse element does not change the character of the fuse assembly. The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (Third Edition) defines fuse as follows :

“Fuse [ELEC] An expandable device for opening an electric circuit when the current therein becomes excessive, containing a section of conductor which melts when the current through it exceeds a rated value for a definite period of time. Also known as electric fuse.”

5. We find that identical products had come up for consideration of the Tribunal, in the earlier decisions namely Havell’s Industries v. Collector of Central Excise [1993 (68) ELT 353 (Tribunal)] and Collector of Central Excise v. V.S. Engineers [1993 (68) ELT 899 (Tribunal)]. Both these decisions classified similar products under Heading 85.37 which judgments were later upheld by the Supreme Court. Although the Havell’s Industries judgment was cited before the Commissioner but he chose to differentiate the ratio thereof.

6. On examination of the literature and the functions of the disputed unit and on perusal of the relevant case law, we are satisfied that the classification of the disputed product under 8537 was appropriate. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.

Equivalent 2001 (133) ELT 0751 (Tri. - Mumbai)