TELCO LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. The dispute relates to classification of gears, shafts and gear -boxes. The appellants contend that these goods should be classified under Heading 84.83, whereas it is the contention of the department that the same are classifiable under Heading 87.08 as parts of motor vehicles. The dispute centers around interpretation of Note 2(e) of Section XVII of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which reads as under : -

(2.) THE expressions "parts" and "parts and accessories" do not apply to the following articles, whether or not they are identifiable as for the goods of this Section : -

(3.) IN the instant case, there is evidence that the impugned goods are not integral parts of engines or motors but are parts of motor vehicles. We also note that the appellants are paying duty on the impugned goods as parts of motor vehicles for the period subsequent to the period in dispute. We also note that in the case of Mahindra & Mahindm Ltd. v. Collector of Customs - , Tribunal had earlier held that goods similar to the impugned goods to be classifiable under Chapter 87 applying the said Section Note 2(e) of Section XVII and Section Note l(k) of Section XVI of the Customs Tariff Schedule which is similar to the Excise Tariff Schedule. The contrary decision in the case of Commissioner, Chennai v. Best Cast (P) Ltd. holding that gear box parts and clutch are not parts of motor vehicle by commercial paralance and classifiable under Heading 8483.00 is distinguishable and moreover, the said decision in its operative part makes no reference to Section Note 2(e) referred to above.