Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Pillar Induction (India) P. Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 4 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(112)ELT837(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The dispute in this appeal relates to classification of two products manufactured by the appellants herein who are manufacturers inter alia of induction furnace :
1. Water cooled heads/cables
2. Bus bars
2. The contention of the Revenue is that both items are electric conductors falling for classification under CET sub-heading 8544.00 while, according to the assessees, the water cooled heads/cables are more appropriately classifiable under CET sub-heading 8514.00 as parts of induction furnace and bus bars are appropriately classifiable under CET sub-heading 8548.00 as "electrical parts of machinery or apparatus, not specified or included elsewhere in this Chapter".
3. The appellants have asked for a decision on merits and hence we heard the learned DR and perused the records and the relevant Tariff entries.
4. We find that there is no dispute that both items are electric conductors; however, the plea of the assessees is that they are not general purposes electric conductors but can only be used in specific locations in the furnace and, therefore, are to be treated not as insulated electric conductors under Heading 85.44 but under 8514 which covers industrial or laboratory induction or die electric heating equipment and industrial or laboratory furnace and ovens, and 85.48 for electrical parts of machinery or apparatus not elsewhere specified or included.
5. Once it is an admitted position that the items are electric conductors, we agree with the learned DR that the appropriate heading viz. the one which specifically covers insulated electric conductors is 8544.00 and it makes no difference that the items in question are specifically designed for a particular use and in a particular location. In other words, once the items are admittedly electric conductors, the fact that they are special purpose conductors does not in any way affect their coverage under CET sub-heading 8544.00. In this view of the matter we see no infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly, uphold the same and reject the appeal.