Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
M/S Nita Industries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Rajkot on 21 May, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(139)ELT706(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. The limited issue involved in the appeal is of classification of Bobbins made of the central Aluminium pipe and Flanges on both sides of laminated plastic with plastic material bushing. The appellants claimed classification under heading 84.48 as parts of textile machinery. The Assistant Collector in finalising the provisional assessment classified the goods under sub-heading 7616.90. This having been upheld by the Collector (Appeals), the present appeal is before us.
2. The Ld. Counsel persists with the plea that bobbins are an internal parts of textile machinery, he submits that are particular bobbins associating with all finalising machines. The original and the appellate authorities have placed reliance on Section Note 1 (sic) to Section XVI which says as under:
1. This Section does not cover:
(sic) Bobbins, spools, copes, cones, corers, reels or similar supports of any Material (for example, Chapter 39,40,44 or 48 or Section XV);
The HSN in the Sub-notes to heading 84.48 reiterates that bobbins spools, etc. would stand excluded and adds that such gods would be classified according to their constituent materials. It appears that bulk of the Bobbins are made of paper. Heading 48.22 covers such gods made of paper. The Chapters relating to other materials do not have a separate nomenclature for such gods and therefore where such bobbins are made of predominant constituent material such a Aluminum, they are taken to be covered under the residuary classification of those chapters.
3. Ld. Counsel also speaks of applicability of Rule 3 (sic) of the Rules of interpretation of the Tariff. We find that the conviction of the departmental authorities that the applicable rule being 2(b) of the said Rules to be correct.
4. We have also taken cognizance of the submission of the Ld. Counsel that the similar bobbins made by their competitor are covered under heading 84.48 for the purpose of charging of duty. We are not the appropriate authority for basing our judgment on the differential practices adopted by the department. Our attempt would be to arrive at the correct classification of contested commodity.
5. We therefore find that the impugned order sustains and is upheld. The appeal is dismissed.
(Pronounced in Court)