High CourtDivision BenchAppeal dismissed, in favour of the Respondent

M/S INTEL DESIGN SYSTEMS (I) P. LTD. v. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 4564 of 2002
Neutral Citation:[2008] 2 S.C.R. 686

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT
  • LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
Judgment Date
2008-02-11
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal dismissed.
Final Disposition
Appeal dismissed, in favour of the Respondent

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • M/S INTEL DESIGN SYSTEMS (I) P. LTD.

Respondents

  • Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Ramesh Singh
  • • Pratap Venugopal
  • • Jhuma Bose
  • • Harshad V. Hameed
  • • Dileep P.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • P. Vishwanatha Shetty
  • • Narasimha
  • • S. J. Aristotle
  • • B. Krishna Prasad

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal concerns the classification of goods manufactured by the appellant for use in defence vehicles. The appellant produced contractors, switches and control boxes and sought classification under Heading 8710 (Armoured and fighting vehicles) of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, arguing the goods are designed for tanks and armoured fighting vehicles and are manufactured strictly as per customer drawings (Ministry of Defence). The assessing authorities and the CEGAT instead classified the articles under Heading 8536.90 (electrical equipment), relying on Note 2(f) to Section XVII which excludes electrical machinery and equipment under Chapter 85 from Chapter 87. The appellant relied on Circular No. 17/90-CEx IV (dated 9.7.1990) and CT2 certificate indicating 8710 classification, contending that the items are identifiable as used solely or principally for such vehicles and should be so treated. The Supreme Court, applying Interpretative Rule 1 (classification according to headings and notes) and Rule 3(a) (specific entry preferred to a general heading), held Note 2(f) excludes the goods from 8710, placing them under 8536.90. The CBEC circular cited by the appellant was deemed to be non-relevant to the issue. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985Section XVIINote 2(f) to Section XVIIRule 1 (Interpretative Rules)Rule 3(a) (Interpretative Rules)Explanatory Notes to HSNChapter Heading 8710Chapter Heading 8536.90Circular No. 17/90-CEX IV dated 9.7.1990

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Interpretative Rule 1: classification according to headings and notes
  • Interpretative Rule 3(a): specific entry shall be preferred to a more general description

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant argued for classification under Heading 8710, contending the goods are manufactured for the Government’s Defence Department and strictly for tanks/armoured fighting vehicles, and were designed per customer drawings. They relied on Circular No. 17/90-CEX IV (dated 9.7.1990) to show that certain transmission elements and related items are not necessarily covered by Heading 84.83 when designed for vehicles; CT2 certificates supported their 8710 classification. They argued that Note 2(f) to Section XVII should not exclude these items from 8710 because the goods are identifiable as armoured-vehicle components and the circular is relevant to interpretation.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent argued that the goods are electrical machinery/equipment falling under Chapter 85 and thus excluded from Chapter 87 by Note 2(f) to Section XVII. Since the goods (contractors, switches, control boxes) are parts of electrical equipment used for switching/protecting electrical circuits, they fall under 8536.90. The Supreme Court should apply Interpretative Rules (Rule 1 and Rule 3(a)) and consider Explanatory Notes to HSN, which support classification under 8536.90. The CBEC circular relied upon by the appellant was considered not applicable to the present dispute.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M/S INTEL DESIGN SYSTEMS (I) P. LTD. v. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

~ [2008] 2 S.C.R. 686 A 8 MIS INTEL DESIGN SYSTEMS (INDIA) P. LTD. _y---_ , .. _v._ COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE (Civil Appeal No. 4564 of 2002) ## FEBRUARY 11, 2008 ## [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] t _Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985:_ c _Sub-Heading 8536. 90_ - _Contractors; switches and control box_ - _Classification of_ - _Held: The goo(js in question are used for switching, protecting electric circuits or for making connections to or in electric circuit_ - _Hence, classifiable under Sub-Heading 8536. 90 by virtue of Note 2(f) to Section XVII_ - D _CBEC circular No. 17190-CEX IV dated 9._ 7. _1990 relied upon by assessee not relevant_ - _Interpretative Rules_ - _Rule 1._ '• .. ' ,l The assessee-appellant was engaged in the manufacture of goods such as contractors, switches and E · control box. It sought classification of these goods under Ch aper Heading 8710 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 on the ground that these goods were manufactured solely and principally for fitting into the tanks and armoured fighting vehicles of the Defence Department. In support of their contention, they relied upon Circular No. 17/90 CE F XIV dated 9.7.1990. .. _I_ ~ Adjudicating Authority relied upon Note 2 (f) to Section XVII and held that goods in question are parts of electrical equipments falling under Chapter Sub heading G[8536.90 ][and ][the ][CBEC ][Circular ][was ][not ][relevant. ] Accordingly Adjudicating Authority classified the goods under Chapter Sub-heading 8536.90 and confirmed the demand. CEGAT dismissed the appeal of assessee. Hence the present appeal. ~ 686 H _·"{._ 687 M/S INTEL DESIGN SYSTEMS (I) P. LTD. _v._ COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE A .. - "i .... • Dismissing the appeal, the Court t A HELD : 1. As per Rule 1 on Interpretative Rules, classification of excisable goods is to be determined according to the terms of the Heading and in terms of Section/Chapter notes. Note 2 (f) to Section XVII (~hich B governs Chapter 87) excludes the goods viz. electrical machinery and equipment (Chapter 85). The goods in question i.e. contractors, switches, control box etc. are the goods used for switching, protecting electrical circuits or for making connections to or in electric circuit; These parts/components are specifically covered under CSH[C' ] 8536.90. The CBEC Circular relied upon by the assessee is not relevant. [Para 4] [690-C, D] 2. As per the Explanatory Notes to HSN, the parts falling under Chapter Heading 8710 would be ·covered D. under the said chapter, provided they fulfill both the conditions i.e. they must be identifiable as being suitable for use solely or principally for such vehides and that they must not be excluded by the provisions of Notes to Section XVII. The identifiable parts under the said heading, E bodies of armoured vehicles and parts thereof, cover special road wheels for armoured cars, propulsion wheels for tanks, tracts etc. As per this requirement, the goods should not only be identifiable to be armoured vehicles, but it should also. not have been excluded by Notes to Section XVII. The Chapter note 2(f) excludes electrical F machinery and equipment falling under Chapter 85. Explanatory Notes to HSN relating to the parts and accessories excluded by Note 2 specify items with reference to specific Chapter Heading as per (7)(a), (k) which excludes photographs and other current collectors G. for electric traction vehicles, fuses, switches and other electric apparatus of Heading No.85.35 or 85.36. The items, therefore, manufactured by the appellants are identifiable or are in the nature of goods falling under Chapter Heading 85.36. Since these fall under the category of excluded H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. 688 A goods under Chapter Notes, even though they are used specifically solely or principally with the armoured vehicles of Chapter Heading 8710, they are classifiable under. Chapter Heading 8536.90 only as held by the adjudicating authority. [Para 5] [690-E-H; 691-A, BJ B CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4564 of 2002. From the final Judgment and Order No. C-1/1270/WZB/ 02 dated 10.05.2002 passed by the Central Excise & Gold c (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai in Appeal No. E/829/2000-Mum. Ramesh Singh, Pratap Venugopal, Jhuma Bose, Harshad V. Hameed and Dileep P. (for Mis. K.J. John & Co.) for the Appellant. D P. Vishwanatha Shetty, Narasimha, S.J. Aristotle and B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to E the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Fort, Mumbai (in short 'CEGAT') dismissing the appeal _filed by the appellant questioning correctness of the order in appeal dated 27.10.1999 passed by Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Pune (in short F 'Commissioner (Appeals)). Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, inter alia, filed classification list of their products G mentioned at Sr. No.1 (a) to (u) of the classification declaration with effect from 20.12.1996 claiming classification under Chapter Heading 8710 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short the 'Tariff Act'). The goods in the classification list were described as parts of tanks and other H armoured and motorized fighting vehicles under Chapter Sub- "'[M/S ][INTEL DESIGN SYSTEMS ][(I) ][P. ][LTD. ] _[v. ]_[COMMNR. ] OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE [PASAYAT, J.] 689 ~ Heading 8710.00 of the Tariff Act. It is the contention of the A ., appellants that the said goods are manufactured for Government of India, Ministry of Defence and are used in the tanks and armoured fighting vehicles. These goods are strictly manufactured as per drawing and design supplied by the customer i.e. Ministry of Defence. Since the goods are B manufactured for use solely and principally for fitting into the tanks in armoured fighting vehicles of the Defence Department, t the correct classification would be under Chapter sub-heading 8710.00. In support of their contention, they have also relied upon the Circular No.17/90 CEX IV dated 9.7.1990 in which it was clarified that transmission elements, switches, gears,[c ] gearing etc. do not fall under Chapter Heading 84.83 when they are specifically designed for use in the vehicles of Section XVII of the Tariff. In support they have submitted CT2 certificate received from Superintendent, Central Excise, Madras wherein D it was stated that said goods are classifiable under Chapter _.>._ Heading 8710. In view of the evidence, it was contended that their classification under Chapter Heading 8710 was in order. On the other hand, the adjudicating authority relied upon Note 2(f) to Section XVII which excludes the goods i.e. electrical E machinery and equipment falling under Chapter 85 and since the appellants' manufacture goods such as contractors, switches, control box etc. and are used for switching/protecting electrical circuits or for making connections to or in electric circuits, these are parts of electrical equipments falling under chapter subheading 8536.90 and CBEC circular was, therefore, not relevant. F -~ Moreover, reliance was placed on the interpretative Rule 3(a) which provides that specific entry shall be preferred to the heading providing more general description. Accordingly, Assistant Commissioner classified the goods under chapter sub-heading 8536.90 and confirmed the demand. G -1f CEGAT dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the classification list for period in question was submitted on 9.4.1997 for the previous periods. Such classification lists were H [2008] 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 690 1 A approved. The show-cause n'otice was issued by the _r-_ ~ Department proposing to levy duty under Heading 8536.90. The Department had not proved that articles fall within Heading 8536.90. It has also relied on Circular No.17/90-CX.4, dated 9.7.1990. A note II has no application because Department has B not proved that the articles fall under Chapter 85. Leaned counsel for the respondent supported the orders. 3. It is to be noted that the CEGAT has held that goods are ~ identifiable as goods under Chapter 8536.90. The authorities •' have categorically held that the article falls under Chapter 85. c 4. As per Rule 1 on Interpretive Rules, classification of excisable goods is to be determined according to the terms of the Heading and in terms of Section/Chapter notes. Note 2(f) to Section XVII (which governs Chapter 87) excludes the goods viz. electrical machinery and equipment (Chapter 85). The goods in question i.e. contractors, switches, control box etc. are the goods used for switching, protecting electrical circuits or for making connections to or in electric circuit. These parts/ - components are specifically covered under CSH 8536.90. The CBEC Circular relied upon by the assessee is not relevant. 0 .~ E 5. As per the Explanatory Notes to HSN the parts falling under Chapter Heading 8710 would be covered under the said chapter, provided they fulfill both the conditions i.e. they must be identifiable as being suitable for use solely or prinCipally for F such vehicles and that they must not be excluded by the provisions of Notes to Section XVI I. The identifiable parts under the said heading bodies of armoured vehicles and parts thereof, cover special road wheels for armoured cars, propulsion wheels for tanks, tracts etc. As per this requirement, the goods should G not only be identifiable to be armoured vehicles, but it should so not have been excluded by Notes to Section XVII. The Chapter note 2(f) excludes electrical machinery and equipmentfalling under Chapter 85. Explanatory Notes to HSN relating to the parts and accessories excluded by Note 2 specify items with reference to specific Chapter Heading as per (7) (a), (k) which ~ ~ .._ H M/S INTEL DESIGN SYSTEMS (I) P. LTD. _v._ COMMNR. 691 OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE [PASAYAT, J.] ~ ~ excludes photographs and other current collectors for electric A traction vehicles, fuses, switches and other electric apparatus of Heading No.85.35 or 85.36. The items, therefore, manufactured by the appellants are identifiable or are in the nature of goods falling under Chapter Heading 85.36. Since these fall under the category of excluded goods under Chapter B Notes, even though they are used specifically solely or principally ... ~with the armoured vehicles of Chapter Heading 8710, they are classifiable under Chapter Heading 8536.90 only as held by the adjudicating authority. 6. The appeal is therefore sans merit, deserves dismissal C which we direct. D.G. Appeal dismissed.