COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. KSB PUMPS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for consideration in these appeals is the classification of various goods which formed part of the pumps that KSB Pumps Ltd. manufactured. The assessee had initially classified these goods in Heading 84.13 as parts of pumps. The department was of the view that this classification was not correct and issued notices proposing to amend the classification. Adjudicating on these notices, the Assistant Commissioner classified all the goods in Heading 84.83. The assessee appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the classification of coupling pilot box to Heading 73.07, accepted the assessee's contention with regard to some goods to classification to Heading 84.13 and confirmed the classification of other goods in Heading 80.83. Both the assessee and the department are in appeal against those parts of the order.

(2.) HEADING 73.07 is for tubes, pipes and fittings therefor. The contention in the department's appeal is that the coupling, which connects together with the shaft of the electric motor and the pump cannot be a tube of pipe fittings; it connects together two shafts and not two pipes. The reply of the Counsel for the assessee is only that the goods are part of the monoblock box. From the description that we have seen of the goods, they bore the part of the shaft that runs between the pump and electric motor, helping to transmit the power. The parts of shaft are classifiable in Heading 84.83 which includes transmission shafts and their parts. We, therefore, think that these goods are to be correctly classifiable in Heading 84.83.

(3.) WE have seen the affidavit filed by Hemant M. Bhagwat, Deputy General Manager in the customer service department of the assessee, with regard to description and function of the other goods. The bearing sleeve, it is stated, is fitted at the end of the shaft. It is stated that it protects the shaft of undue wear and tear. The nature of this protection is not indicated and the contention of the Counsel for the assessee is that it prevents the liquid which is being pumped from coming into contact with the surface of the shaft is difficult to accept; he agrees that there is no water tap protection such as bearing, bush etc. between the shaft and the hosing. It is clear that from the location of the hosing at the end of the shaft it appears to be some function as the plain shaft which would clearly be classifiable in Heading 84.83.