M/S. CHAND INDUSTRIES Vs. CCE, DELHI-II

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, filed by M/s. Chand Industries, the issue involved is whether Bobbins are classifiable under Heading 87.14 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as parts of Motor Vehicles as claimed by the Appellants or under Sub -heading 3923.40 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order.

(2.) COUNTERING the arguments, Shri R.D. Negi, learned SDR, submitted that Note 2(p) to Chapter 39 excludes only parts of vehicles from falling under Chapter 39: that merely because bobbin is used in the manufacture of motor cycles it cannot be treated as parts of motor cycle: that Note 1(c) to Section XVI clearly provides that bobbins are not covered by Section XVI and it also indicates the Chapter in which the bobbins would fall and the classification of bobbins depends on the materials from which these are made that as in the present matter it is made of plastic it will be classifiable under Chapter 39. He, further, submitted that explanatory Note of H.S.N. specifically mentions that bobbins fall under Heading 39.23 and as such classification ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct; that the dispute regarding classification of bobbins was between Chapter 39 and 87 and the Appellants were put to notice that the impugned product was not classifiable under Chapter 87 and was classifiable under Chapter 39 as articles of plastics. There is only change in the Heading and as the Chapter remains the same the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not beyond the scope of appeal.

(3.) WE have considered the submission of both the sides. We agree with the submissions of the learned D.R. that merely because the bobbins are used by the customers of the Appellants in the manufacture of motor cycle they do not become parts of motor cycle. Bobbins are used as a support and it is clearly specified in the Explanatory Notes of H.S.N. that bobbins are classifiable under Heading 39.23. There is nothing on record brought by the Appellants to show that the bobbins made by them are parts of motor vehicles and accordingly Note (p) to Chapter 39 will have no application. We also do not find any substance in the submissions of the learned Consultant that they were not put to notice as the dispute was from the beginning whether the bobbins are classifiable are articles of plastics or as parts of motor cycle. In view of this we do not find any merit in the appeal which is rejected.