2003(05)LCX0115

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI

S/Shri Gowri Shankar, Member (T) and G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J)

EMCO LENZE PVT. LTD.

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AIRPORT, MUMBAI

Order No. 1201/2003-WZB/C-II, dated 22-5-2003 in Appeal No. C/756/97-Bom.

REPRESENTED BY :   Shri M.J. Nambiar, Consultant, for the Appellant.

Shri R.K. Pardeshi, DR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of parts of friction disc which are of electronic magnetic clutches and brakes imported by the appellant. It is not in dispute that the friction disc is made out of composite of synthetic rubber, carbon and mineral fibre etc. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the classification determined by the Assistant Commissioner in Heading 68.13 of the Customs Tariff as friction materials and articles thereof not imported.

2. The representative of the appellant contends that the goods form clearly identifiable parts of electronic magnetic clutches and brakes. They are therefore parts of these goods, which are themselves classifiable in Heading 8505.90. There being nothing in the tariff to make against the classification, they should be classified as parts.

3. We agree that the notes to Section XVI of the tariff, in which includes Chapter 85 does not specifically exclude classification of these goods. However, in our view, the scope of the headings themselves gives a clear indication as to their classification. Heading 68.13 as we have mentioned is for friction material or articles thereof. Sub-heading 10 is for “brake linings and pads.” Sub-heading 90 is for “others.” It cannot be disputed that these are articles of friction material for brakes and clutches with a basis of asbestos of other mineral substances other than just asbestos and that they are not imported. This heading therefore appears more specifically accountable, than the general heading for parts of brakes and clutches. It is well settled principle of interpretation that specific entry takes precedent over the general. Accordingly the goods are rightly to be classified under Heading 68.13. We, therefore, see no ground for interference.

4. Appeal dismissed.

_______

Equivalent 2003 (156) ELT 0905 (Tri. - Mumbai)