COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. IVP LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue referred for consideration of the Larger Bench is whether "AA Nozzles" made of ceramic nozzles manufactured by M/s. IVP Ltd. are classifiable under Heading No. 69.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act or under Heading 85.15 of the Central Excise Tariff.

(2.) Mrs. Krishna A. Mishra, learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that the respondents M/s. IVP Ltd. manufacture industrial ceramic nozzles and has sought classification under Heading 85.15 of the tariff on the ground that these are suitable for use solely with welding machines which fall under Heading 85.15; that the Appellate Tribunal in the case of NTB Hitech Ceramics v. CCE and Customs, Pune [2001 (127) E.L.T. 200 (Tri.)] has classified ceramic nozzles under 1 leading 85.15 on the ground that there is no exclusion of goods of Chapter 69 in Chapter 85 of the Tariff and as the impugned goods are for use solely or principally in the welding machine, they are classifiable under Heading 85.15; that the co -ordinate Bench in the matter of respondents is of the view that since ceramic nozzles are not classifiable in any of the Heading of Chapter 84 or Chapter 85, the classification of these goods must be looked into Heading outside Chapters 84 and 85 and since ceramic nozzles are specifically covered under Heading 69.01, the classification in that Heading is the most appropriate instead of Heading No. 85.15.

(3.) Learned Senior Departmental Representative submitted that Heading No. 69.01 applies to refractory ceramics goods such as retorts, crucibles, muffles, nozzles, plugs, supports, cupels, tubes, pipes, sheaths and rods; that thus ceramics nozzles are specifically mentioned in Heading No. 69.01 of the Tariff; that once the product is specifically covered by any Heading of the Tariff, it has to be classified therein; that Rule 3(a) of the Rules for the Interpretation of the Schedule clearly provides that Heading which provides most specific description shall be preferred to the Heading providing a more general description. She relied upon the decision in the case of Emco Lenze Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Airport, Mumbai [2003 (156) E.L.T. 905 (Tri. - Mumbai)] wherein it has been held that "It is well settled principle of interpretation that the specific entry takes precedent over the general." She also mentioned that there is no exclusion clause in Chapter 69 to exclude parts of welding machines from the purview of Chapter 69. She also contended that Note 2 to Section XVI of the Tariff contains instructions for the classification of the goods. Sub -clause (a) of Note 2 provides that parts/goods which are included in any of the Heading of Chapter 84 or Chapter 85 are in all cases to be classified in their respective Headings; that Explanatory Notes of HSN clearly mentions that "subject to certain exclusions provided in the Notes in this Section and to Chapters 84 and 85 and apart from the goods covered more specifically in other Sections, this Section covers all mechanical or electrical machinery." She contended that it is apparent from the Explanatory Notes that if the goods are more specifically covered in other Sections of the Tariff, these will not be classified under Chapters 84 and 85; that as ceramics nozzle is specifically covered by Heading 69.01, it has to be classified therein. Finally, she submitted that in NTB Hitech Ceramics case, the Appellate Tribunal has classified ceramics nozzles in Chapter 85 on the ground that there was no specific exclusion of the goods falling under Chapter 69 in Chapter 85 of the Tariff; that once a product is specifically covered by a Chapter description, it has not to be specifically excluded from any other Chapter as held by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Emco Lenze Pvt. Ltd. (supra); that in Emco Lenze case, the issue involved was the classification of friction material whether under Heading 68.13 or under Heading 85.05; that the contention of the appellants was that friction material was clearly identifiable parts of electrical mechanical clutches and brakes and therefore, should be classifiable under Heading 8505.90 and Chapter 85 does not specifically excludes classification of these goods. The Tribunal has held that the scope of Heading themselves gives a clear indication as to their classification and Heading 68.13 is for friction material which is more specific than the general Heading for parts of brakes and clutches. The Tribunal has classified the said goods under Heading 68.13 even if these were not specifically excluded from Chapter 85.