Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Lucas Tvs Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 8 May, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995(80)ELT309(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The issue for decision in this appeal is the classification of bulb-holder assembly. The appellant company had been clearing these goods manufactured by it after paying duty on them under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. A show cause notice was issued to it on 25th May, 1982 proposing classification of the goods under Tariff Item 61, and recovery of differential duty. After considering the reply, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras held that the assembly was correctly classifiable under Item 68. In the appeal filed by the Department against this order, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras ruled that the assembly was classifiable under Tariff Item 61, and set aside the Order of the Assistant Collector. It is against this Order that the appellant has come in appeal before us.
2. Shri V. Sridharan, advocate for the appellant explained that the goods manufactured by the appellant were an assembly into which bulbs for head-lamps of motor vehicles were to be fitted. They were specialised for use in motor vehicles, both in terms of their construction, and with regard to the voltage that they could handle. They could not be used in a general lighting system. In commercial practice too, these goods would not be known as electrical equipment for general use and would not be known and treated as parts of motor vehicles. They would, therefore, not be classifiable under Tariff Item 61. [Since they did not] figure in the list of motor vehicle parts specified in Tariff Item 34A, they would fall for classification under Tariff Item 68. He relied upon the un-reported decision of the Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise v. Deepak Industries Order No. 2829/84-D and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atul Glass Industries v. Collector of Central Excise 1986 (25) E.L.T. 473.
3. Shri M.K. Jain, Departmental Representative, points out that Tariff Item 61 includes switches, plugs and sockets, all kinds and this description covers the goods in question. He relies upon the Tariff Advice No. 153, dated 5-12-1981 of the Central Board of Excise and Customs to say that switches of all kinds will be classifiable under Tariff Item 61 and on the decision of this Tribunal in Bombay Switch Gear v. Collector Customs -1985 (22) E.L.T. 611.
4. Tariff Item 61 was specifically for electric lighting fittings, namely, switches, plugs and sockets, all kinds. In the M/s. Deepak Industries decision, the Tribunal had before it the question as to whether switches, plugs and sockets for use in two-wheeler, three-wheeler motor vehicles would be classifiable under Item 61 or Item 68. After considering the decision of the Bombay High Court in P.M.P. Auto Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. -1987 (31) E.L.T. 369 (Bom.)-- which has been followed by the Tribunal in a few decisions 1989 (43) E.L.T. 653; 1989 (42) E.L.T. 156 and 1987 (32) E.L.T. 735 (Tri.) was specifically cited - it concluded that the goods in question fall under Tariff Item 68. The Bombay High Court in the P.M.P. Auto Industries Ltd. case have ruled that push-pull switches, headlight switches and stop light switches were automobile parts falling under Tariff Item 68.
5. The decision cited by the Departmental Representative is not relevant to the issue before us. The question there was whether the goods manufactured by the appellant were sockets within the meaning of Tariff Item 61. The issue has been decided by decision in the Deepak Industries. The observation of the Bench in that decision that no evidence has been placed by the Revenue to show that the goods were known in the trade parlance as electric lighting fittings or that they were to be found with dealers of electric lighting fittings would apply with equal force to the goods now under consideration. There being no contrary decision, we follow the ratio of the decision in M/s. Deepak Industries case and hold that the goods are classifiable under Tariff Item 68. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(S.K. Bhatanagar) (Gowri Shankar)
Vice President Member (T)
G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
6. I have gone through the order written by my Learned Brother Shri Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical).
7. The dispute relates to classification of bulb-holder assembly. The point to be considered in this case is whether bulb-holder assembly manufactured by the appellants is classifiable under Tariff Item 61 as per Department or under Tariff Item 68 as claimed by the party.
8. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that items in question were specially designed for use in Motor vehicles. They could not be used in a general lighting system. Accordingly, items cannot be treated as Electric Lighting Fittings in general to classify the same under Item 61, C.E.T. The factual position that items can be specially designed for use in motor vehicles has not been rebutted by the Department and there is no evidence placed before us by the Revenue to show that subject goods are known in the trade parlance as electric lighting fittings or they are to be found with the dealers of electric lighting fittings, but it was argued on behalf of the Revenue that Tariff Item 61 includes Switches, plugs and sockets, all kinds, and the expression 'all kinds' covers goods in question relying upon the Tariff Advice No. 153, dated 5-12-1981. In the case of P.M.P. Auto Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. 1987 (31) E.L.T. 369 (Bom.), Bombay High Court has held that push-pull switches, headlight switches and stop light switches are automobile parts under Item 68, GET and electrical lighting fittings under Item No. 61. The learned Judges noted therein that these switches were available in the market for automobile spare parts and not in the market for ordinary electric lights and fittings. In the case of Bombay Switchgears, Mahalakshmi, Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 611 referred to by the Departmental Representative, although it was held that term 'socket' occurring in Tariff Item 61 is a generic term and covers lamp-holders and, accordingly, lamp-holder was classifiable under [Item] 61 in the absence of evidence to show that it was specifically designed to use in automobiles, but the decision in the case of P.M.P. Auto Industries Ltd., referred to above is more to the point in the present case since that case dealt with the issue directly with reference to the different types of lights, switches used in the automobiles. Following the ratio of the decision in the case of P.M.P. Auto Industries Ltd., the Tribunal has also taken the similar view in the following cases :-
(1) Collector of Central Excise v. Perfect Electric Corporation (P) Ltd., 1989 (43) E.L.T. 653. (2) Collector of Central Excise v. Sundaram Clayten Ltd., 1989 (42) E.L.T. 156 (3) Automotive Ancillary Services v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras, 1987 (32) E.L.T. 735 (Tribunal).
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly in the absence of any evidence placed by the Revenue to show that subject goods could be used as general electric lighting fittings and they are known in trade parlance as electric lighting fittings or they are to be found with the dealers of electric lighting fittings, following the ratio of the decision in the case of P.M.P. Auto Industries Ltd., I am also of the view that these goods are classifiable under Tariff Item 68. Accordingly, I agree with the conclusion arrived at by my Learned Brother Shri Gowri Shankar in classifying the item under Tariff Item 68.