Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Our attention has specially been drawn by the appellants to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Annapurna Carbon Industry Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1976 SC 1418), in which it was held that the deciding factor in the matter of classification would be the predominant use or ordinary purpose to which a product is put and that it is not enough to show that the Article can be put to other uses also. It was held that the general or predominant use would determine the category in which an Article should fall.

10. In view of what is stated above, it cannot also be claimed by the department that, in terms of the aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court, this is a case where the Article to be classified "is, by all standards, classifiable under a specific item in the Tariff Schedule and that, therefore, it would be against the very principle of classification to deny it the parentage and consign it to an orphanage of a residuary item". Considering the very nature of the product in question, namely stationary diesel engines and the predominant use of the parts imported, it is not possible to maintain that the goods are classifiable as motor vehicle parts.

18. As for the appellants' reliance on principal or predominant use being the basis of classification and reliance on Annapurna Carbon Industries v. State of Andhra Pradesh-AIR 1976 SC 1418, I have carefully gone through the decision. The decision related to assessment of Arc carbons known as Cinema Arc carbons under Entry No. 4 of the 1st Schedule of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act 1957. The main discussion is to be found in paras 7 to 11 of the decision. The relevant entry fell in that part of Schedule in which description of goods to be taxed was indicated by the expression 'required for use therewith'. Para 8 of the decision would show that the first entry in the Schedule excluded certain other articles by using the words 'not being such articles as are ordinarily also used for other purposes than as parts and accessories of motor vehicles'. It appears that the finding with reference to Entry No. 4 dealing with goods in question as to the deciding factor being predominant or ordinary purpose or use was given with reference to the expressions used in the Act as also the fact that the goods in question were known as Cinema Arc Carbon in the market and the decision may not be helpful for the present dispute.

20. In the present appeal the goods imported are 'bearings and bush' and have been for the purpose of basic customs duty classified under Heading 84.63 of of CTA. This classification is not disputed by the appellants. Accepting the appellants' own reasoning that the classification for the purpose of basic customs duty and countervailing duty should be in consonance with one another, it has to be seen whether bearings fall for classification under Heading 34-A as an item specified therein or under residuary tariff item 68. There is no dispute that the thin walled bearings specified in Tariff Item 34A is the same product as the goods imported. Now, should the predominant use of the product by a particular importer be taken into consideration for classifying the product under Tariff Item 34-A. From the order of the Appellate Collector it is noticed that appellants admitted that component parts imported by them were fitted into diesel engines which sometimes have vehicular application. The Internal combustion engines manufactured by the appellants are interchangeable with motor-vehicle engines. The Collector went on to say that the purpose and application of the diesel engines manufactured by the appellants with component parts imported by them is well-known, i.e. they have vehicular application. It is not shown or suggested that use of diesel engines for vehicular application is stray or eccentric use. One should therefore presume that it could be regular use. If one wanted a regular use of the Internal Combustion engine in a motor vehicle is possible. In view of this admission and the inference I propose to draw I will not consider it necessary for the Customs authorities to go and enquire as to what is the preponderant use of the bearings. Keeping this in view, bearings being specified in Tariff Item 34, it has by all standards a reasonable claim to be classified under this Item and as laid down in AIR 1977 SC 597 it will be against the very principle of classification to deny it the parentage and consign it to an orphanage or residuary Clause, i.e. Tariff Item 68, on the basis that the Internal Combustion engines manufactured by the appellants are predominantly for non-vehicular application. I would therefore hold that classification of bearings and bush under Tariff Item 34-A by the lower authorities is correct and calls for no interference and I would dismiss the appeals.