Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Larsen And Toubro Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 11 November, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(98)ELT861(TRI-DEL)
ORDER S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 9-9-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. Vide impugned order, the respondents classified the product "Torsion Shaft" for membrance coupling under sub-heading No. 8483.00 of the Central Excise Tariff, 1985. The appellants claimed the classification of "Torsion Shaft" under sub-heading No. 8479.00 of the Central Excise Tariff, 1985.
2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various types of machinery and parts thereof including machinery for manufacture of cement. The appellants filed C/List dated 17th March, 1987 classifying the cement machinery and parts thereof under Chapter Heading No. 8479.00 of the Central Excise Tariff, 1985. The C/List was duly approved, thereafter, a show cause notice was issued by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise alleging that why the 'Torsion Shaft' should not be classified under Chapter Heading No. 8483.00 and the respondents after adjudication classified the Torsion Shaft' under sub-heading No. 8483.00.
3. Ld. Advocate submits that the finding by the lower authorities that the Torsion Shaft' is a kind of transmission shaft was wholly erroneous. He submits that Torsion Shaft' is an integral part of Rotary Kiln specifically manufactured to the design and drawings suitable to the cement plant. He relied upon the certificate issued by M/s. Shanti Consulting Engineers to show that Torsion Shaft is specifically designed for rotary kiln for burning the magnesite. He submits that function of the Torsion Shaft is to avoid mismalignment between the gear box and pinion. Torsion Shaft by itself neither transmits nor does generate any power. He submits that without the Torsion Shaft, the motor can transmit power through the gear box to the pinion. He therefore, submits that Torsion Shaft is suitable for use solely and exclusively with the cement machinery, therefore, the same is classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 8479. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Charnundi Machine Tool Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bangalore reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 235 (Tribunal). He submits that in that case, the Tribunal classified the shaft u/h No. 84.66 of the Central Excise Tariff suitable for use solely or principally with the lathe. He therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.
4. Heard Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR appeared on behalf of the respondent.
5. In this case, the dispute is regarding classification of Torsion Shaft' for membrance coupling. The appellants claimed the classification under subheading No. 8479.00 of the Central Excise Tariff, 1985. Sub-heading No. 8479.00 provides as under:
"8479.00 Machinery and mechanical appliances having individual functions not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter."
6. The Revenue classified the Torsion Shaft' under sub-heading No. 8483.00 and this sub-heading is reproduced below :
"8483.00 Transmission shafts (including cam shafts and crank shafts) and cranks; Bearing housings and plain shaft bearings; Gears and gearing; Ball screws; gear boxes and other speed changers, including torque converters; Fly wheels and pulleys, including pulley blocks clutches and shaft couplings (including universal joints)."
7. The contention of the appellants is that the function of the Torsion Shaft is to avoid misalignment between the gear box and pinion and the Torsion Shaft by itself neither transmits nor does generate any power. The appellants attached the diagram of Torsion Shaft as Exhibit 'B' of the appeal memo. The copy of the Exhibit 'B' is reproduced below :
8. The diagram shows that the motor is attached to the gear box and the gear box is attached to the pinion with Torsion Shaft and the pinion is further attached with gear. The motor is the prime mover and through the gear box, the Torsion Shaft transmits the rotary movement to the gear.
9. The meaning of Torsion' as per Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology is that "State of strain set up in a part by twisting. The external twisting effort is opposed by the shear stresses induced in the material. Twisting without marked displacement."
10. From the diagram and functions as pleaed by the appellants, the 'Torsion Shaft' is for transmitting rotary motive power, therefore, it is a transmission shaft.
11. New Mechanical Dictionary by Andel defines 'shaft' as "A bar having one or more journals on which it rests and revolves and intended to carry one or more wheels or revolving parts as a shaft of the steam engine". The Dictionary of Technical Terms by E.S. Crispin defines 'shaft' as "An axle or bar usually cylindrical used to support rotating pieces or to transmit power to motion by rotation." As per the function explained by the appellants that this is a transmission shaft to transmit power to motion by rotation. The appellants relied upon the case of Chamundi Machine Tools Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bangalore supra. In this case, the Tribunal on the basis of the facts of the case held that 'Shafts' are classifiable u/h No. 84.86 of the Central Excise Tariff, 1985 as parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with lathe. The Tribunal in para 6 of the order held that "As the description given in the classification list does not tally with the description u/h No. 84.83 of the C. Ex. Tariff, 1985, therefore, these 'shafts' may not be classified u/h No. 84.83 and will be classifiable u/h No. 84.86 as parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with lathe." In that case the Tribunal after considering the description given by the assessee in the C/List held that those shafts are to be classified as parts and accessories suitable for use with lathe.
12. The facts of the present case are different. In this case as shown in the diagram submitted by the appellants, 'Torsion Shaft' transmits rotary motive power. The Section Note 2 of Section XVI of the C. Ex. Tariff, 1985 provides that parts which are goods included in any of the headings of Chapter 84 or Chapter 85 of the Tariff (other than Heading Nos. 84.85 and 85.48) are in all cases to be classified in their respective headings. The Section Note 2 of Section XVI of the CETA, 1985 is reproduced below :
"2. Subject to Note 1 to this Section Note 1 to Chapter 84 and to Note 1 to Chapter 85, parts of machines (not being parts of the articles of Heading No. 84.84, 85.45, 85.46 or 85.47) are to be classified according to the following Rules :-
(a) parts which are goods included in any of the Headings of Chapter 84 or Chapter 85 (other than Heading Nos. 84.85 and 85.48) are in all cases to be classified in their respective headings.
(b) other parts, if suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine, or with a number of machines of the same Heading (including a machine of Heading No. 84.79 or Heading No. 85.43) are to be classified with the machines of that kind. However, parts which are equally suitable for use principally with the goods of Heading Nos. 85.17 and 85.25 or 85.2 are to be classified in Heading No. 85.17.
(c) all other parts are to be classified in Heading No. 84.85 or Heading No. 85.48."
From a plain reading of Section Note 2 of Section XVI as set out above, it is obvious that parts of machines falling under this Section are to be classified according to Rules set out in (a), (b) & (c).
13. Section Note 2(a) states that any parts which are goods included in any of the Headings of Chapter 84 or Chapter 85 (other than Heading Nos. 84.85 and 85.48) are in all cases to be classified in their respective Headings. Therefore, "Torsion Shaft" is rightly classifiable under sub-heading No. 8483 of the Central Excise Tariff, 1985.
14. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.