Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Textile Bearing (Kci) Pvt. Ltd. vs C.C.E. on 7 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(109)ECC14, 2006ECR14(TRI.-DELHI), 2006(199)ELT706(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
S.S. Kang, Vice President
1. Heard both sides. Appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The dispute in this appeal is in regard to classification of various parts and components of ball bearings such as needles rollers, aluminium cages, inner and outer races, inner and outer rings, lay shaft bushes of different dimensions. There is no dispute that these are parts of ball bearings. Appellant claimed classification under heading 84.85 of the Central Excise Tariff which covered "machinery parts, not containing electrical connectors, insulators, coils contacts or other electrical features not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter". The revenue claimed classification under heading 84.82 of the Central Excise Tariff Act which covers "Ball or roller bearings".
2. The contention of the learned Counsel is that heading 84.82 covers ball or roller bearings and parts are no specified there and therefore, they are classifiable under the residual entry 8485.90 which covers machinery parts not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter.
3. Learned SDR relied on the HSN explanatory notes to submit that parts manufactured by the appellant are classifiable under heading 84.82 of the CETA. Revenue also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. to submit that the dispute relating to tariff classification must, as far as possible, be resolved with reference to the nomenclature indicated by the HSN unless there be an express different intention indicated by the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
4. The goods in dispute are parts of ball bearings. We have gone through the entries under 84.82 of HSN Explanatory notes which covers ball or roller bearings. As per the HSN Explanatory notes, needle rollers, inner and outer races, inner and outer rings of different dimensions are covered under this heading. Further we find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. (supra) held that to resolve the issue of classification, the nomenclature indicated by the HSN should be followed. As the goods in question are specifically covered under heading 84.82 as per the HSN explanatory notes and there is no intention contrary to this is indicated in the CETA. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court)