EUREKA FORBES LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these four appeals, arising out of a Common Order Nos. 140 -43/2000 dated 3 -3 -2000, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), issue involved is whether the plastic hoses manufactured by the Appellants, M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd., are classifiable under Heading 39.17 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or under Heading No. 85.09 of the Tariff as claimed by the Appellants.

(2.) SHRI H.C. Daroowala, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Vacuum Cleaner and parts thereof, falling under Heading 85.09 of the Tariff; that Vaccum hose manufactured by them is an integral part of the Vacuum Cleaner; that the vacuum cleaner cannot function without the hose which is specially designed for use only with the vacuum cleaner, that the impugned hoses are not items of general use; that Note 1 (g) to Section XVI of the Tariff provides that this Section does not cover "Parts of general use, as defined in Note 2 to Section XV, of base metal (Section XV), or similar goods of plastics (Chapter 39 ); that Note 2 to Section XV defines " Parts of general use" as under :

(3.) THE ld. Advocate, further, submitted that Heading 73.07 refers to Tube or pipe fittings (for example, couplings, elbows, sleeves), of iron or steel; that accordingly the definition of general use does not cover pipe or tube of base metal or of plastics, falling under Heading No. 39.17; that only fittings of tubes, pipes, and hoses of plastics which also fall under Heading 39.17 would be "parts of general use"; that pipe fittings means joints and hose by itself is not a fitting; that in Jyoti Plastics v. CC, 1993 (64) E.L.T. 291 (T), the Tribunal had misconstrued Note 2 to Section XVI; that the findings in Para 11 of the said decision were on account of misreading of Note l(g) to Section XVI. He also mentioned that vacuum hoses are clearly classifiable under Heading 85.09 by virtue of Note 2(b) to Section XVI as these are specially made for use only with the vacuum cleaners and cannot be used for any other purposes; that once the goods can be classified as per Section Note, Rules of Interpretation cannot be resorted to. He relied upon the decision in the case of Sealol Hindustan Ltd. v. U.O.L, 1988 (36) E.L.T. 283 (Bom.), wherein it was held that Note 2 prescribes rules for classification of parts of machines. According to Note 2(b), parts suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine are to be classified with the machine. In that case mechanical seals which were specifically designed for centrifugal pumps or compressors and could be used only with them were held to be falling by virtue of Note 2(b) under Heading 84.10(1) or 84.11(1). Reliance was also placed on the following decisions and Board's Circular.