COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. NICE STEEL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Appeal, filed by Revenue, the issue involved is whether the Chaf Cutter Blades, manufactured by M/s. Nice Steel Industries, are classifiable under Heading No. 84.36 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order, or under Heading No. 82.08 as claimed by Revenue.

(2.) SHRI U. Raja Ram, leanred Departmental Representative submitted that the Chaf Cutter Blades, commonly know as "Gandasa" as meant for mechanical appliances used in agriculture; that Heading 84.36 covers the machine for agricultural purposes; that the said Heading, however, does not cover the parts which are specifically classifiable elsewhere; that Heading No. 82.08 specifically covers "knives and cutting blades for machine or for mechanical applicances"; that as per Explanatory Notes of HSN below Heading 82.08, all unmounted blades for machines are to be classified under the said heading; that the impugned blades are an independent commodity falling under Heading No. 82.08; that Note 2 to Section XVI of the Tariff clearly provides that the application of Note 2 is subject to the provisions of Note 1 to Section XVI; that Note 1(j) clearly provides that the Section XVI does not cover the goods of Chapters 82 and 83 of the Tariff. He also contended that as per Rule 1 of the Rules for the Interpretation of Schedule, classification of the goods has to be determined according to the terms of the Heading; that applying Rule 1, the impugned goods is squarely classifiable under Heading 82.08 only. He relied upon the decision in CCE, Chandigarh vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 2001 (134) ELT 406 (T) wherein it has been held that "It is settled position in law that the parts which are specifically described in any of the particular Heading/sub -Heading were to be classifiable in that Heading" Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Eicher Precision Machines Ltd. vs. CCE, New Delhi, 2001 (131) ELT 600 (T) and Dunlop India Ltd. and Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 1983 ELT 566 (SC).

(3.) COUNTERING the arguments, Shri V.M. Verma, learned Advocate, submitted that Chaf Cutter consists of two parts, nemely, frame and chaf cutter blades; that in the absence of blades, the chaf cutter cannot function at all; that as a matter of fact, blades are the principal parts of Chaf Cutter and as such are classifiable as part of Chaf Cutter, that the impugned blades can not be used in any otherway or for any other purpose; that accordingly these are classifiable only under Heading 84.36, particularly in view of Section Note 2 (b) of Section XVI which clearly stipulates that the parts suitable for use solely or principally with a particular machine are to be classified alongwith the machine; that further Note 1(f) to Section XV clearly excludes the articles of Section XVI from the purview of Section XV. The learned Advocate also contended that the Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh, under Trade Notice 27/CE/98 dated 26.10.98 has classified the impugned product under Heading 84.36 only; that it has been held by the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay, 2001 (115) ELT 42 (SC) that "It is hardly to be supposed that the Customs authorities can take one stand in one State and another stand in another State. The Trade Notice issued by one Customs House must bind all Customs Authorities."