Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2922

Classification of motor vehicles hinges and handles.

Case:- CAST METAL INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. VERSUS  COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.-IV, KOLKATA

Citation:- 2015 (325) E.L.T. 471 (S.C.)

Brief Facts:-The appellant/assessee is in appeal and has questioned the correctness and validity of the decision dated 10-8-2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (EZB), Kolkata, rendered in the appeal which was filed by the assessee herein challenging the decision of the Commissioner whereby the Commissioner had classified the goods of the assessee under Chapter Heading 8302.00 while discarding the plea of the assessee that these goods are classifiable under Chapter Heading 8708.00. The goods in question are motor vehicles hinges and handles. The assessee is the manufacturer of motor vehicles parts which were supplied by the assessee to M/s. Tata Motors Limited, M/s. Hindustan Motors Limited and M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, the original equipment manufacturers. It is not in dispute that these motor vehicles hinges and handles are manufactured by the assessee on the basis of specifications given by the clients in the form of designs as well as part number. It is also not in dispute that the hinges and handles are used only in the motor vehicles which are manufactured by the aforesaid manufacturers of the motor vehicles. In this backdrop, the question that fell for consideration is as to whether the goods are classifiable under Chapter Heading 8302.00 or Chapter Heading 8708.00. The two competing entries read as under:

87.08 8708.00 Parts and accessories of the motor vehicles of Heading Nos. 87.01 to 87.05 15%
83.02 8302.00 Base metal mountings, fittings and similar articles suitable for furniture, doors, staircases, windows, blinds, coachwork, sadder, trunks, chests, caskets or the like; base metal hat-racks, hat-pegs, brackets and similar fixtures; castors with mountings or base metal; automatic door closers of base metal. 18%
 

 
It becomes manifest from the reading of the aforesaid two entries that whereas parts and accessories of motor vehicles are covered by Entry No. 8708.00, Chapter Heading 8302.00 deals with furniture fittings. Therefore, one can clearly find that the goods in question, which are specifically meant for motor vehicle as its parts, are the parts and accessories of the motor vehicles and merely because they are hinges and handles, these, by itself, cannot be treated as accessories or fittings of furniture as the use of the aforesaid items is specifically for motor vehicles and cannot be used generally for any other product much less furniture.
 
Appellants Contention:-Mr. S.K. Bagaria, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, has submitted that the parts hinges and handles which are manufactured by the assessee meant for the motor vehicles have certain specifications which are as follows :
“DOOR HANDLE FOR MOTOR VEHICLES.
(a)        It works in conjunction with inside design of the door locking system of the motor vehicles.
(b)        It is manufactured strictly conforming to the designs and drawings of the concerned model of the vehicle as supplied by the motor vehicle manufacturers.
(c)        On the exterior portion of the door handle, there is a push button. If it is pushed, the mechanism inside the vehicle hits and pushes the plate in the locking system. Thereby the locking mechanism inside the door panel enables the door to open.
(d)        If it is the door handle for driver’s door, it is provided with lock and key.
(e)        In the motor vehicle manufacturer’s drawing/design, part number of the handle is mentioned. This part number is also mentioned in the purchase orders as well as in the Invoices raised by the Appellant.
(f)         The appellant manufactured door handles for the motor vehicles manufactured by three motor vehicle manufacturers, viz. Tata Motors Limited, Hindustan Motors Limited and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
HINGES FOR MOTOR VEHICLES
(a)        Hinges were manufactured as per the designs and drawings of the concerned model of motor vehicle as supplied by the motor vehicle manufacturers.
(b)        These were for being fitted on the outside portion of the bonnet and dickey of the motor vehicles.
(c)        These performed the function of enabling lifting of bonnet and dickey portions manually and at the same time preventing the said portions from going further back and hitting the main body of the vehicle.
(d)        These were of the precise sizes and designs of the concerned models of the motor vehicles and at the same time the curve given to these parts precisely matched the curve of the body of the motor vehicle at bonnet and dickey portions. The objection was that these can precisely rest without any gap on the body of the motor vehicle.”
 
Respondents Contention:-Commissioner classified the goods under Chapter Heading 8302.00 by relying upon the Explanatory Note under Heading 83.02. This Note read as under :
“This heading covers general purpose classes of base metal accessory fittings and mountings, such as are used largely on furniture, doors, windows, coach work etc. Goods within such general classes remain in this heading even if they are designed for particular uses (e.g. door handles or hinges for automobiles). The heading does not, however, extend to goods forming as essential part of the structure of the article, such as window frames or swivel devices for revolving chairs.
 
Reasoning of Judgement:-The aforesaid factual position is neither disputed nor it can be disputed by the Department. Notwithstanding the aforesaid position, Supreme Court find that the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal have classified the goods under Chapter Heading 8302.00 by relying upon the Explanatory Note under Heading 83.02. This Note read as under :
“This heading covers general purpose classes of base metal accessory fittings and mountings, such as are used largely on furniture, doors, windows, coach work etc. Goods within such general classes remain in this heading even if they are designed for particular uses (e.g. door handles or hinges for automobiles). The heading does not, however, extend to goods forming as essential part of the structure of the article, such as window frames or swivel devices for revolving chairs.”
On the face of it, this note would not be applicable as it is HSN Note which has diversion with the relevant entry and as the very first line thereof mentions that it covers those goods which are meant for “general purpose”. In the instant case, as already pointed out above, the goods in question are meant for specific purpose viz. in the motor vehicles that too for specific model of the motor vehicles as its parts.
They also find that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of G.S. Auto International Limited v. CC Excise, Chandigarh [2003 (2) SCC 371 = 2003 (152) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]. In the said judgment, following the earlier decisions of this Court, the Court specifically held that to determine the applicability of the item under particular head, the test of commercial identity of the goods would be the relevant test and not the functional test. It was also held that the expression “parts of general use” would not apply to parts or accessories which are not suitable for use solely or primarily with articles of Chapter Heading 87.08 which pertains to parts and accessories of motor vehicles of Chapter Headings 87.01 to 87.05. The Court was also categorical that in such a case the test that is to be applied is : ‘whether the goods are suitable for use solely or primarily with articles of Chapter Headings 87.01 to 87.05’. It is strange even when the judgment was specifically brought to the notice of the Tribunal and is taken note of, but the same was not dealt with by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment at all.
They are of the opinion that the aforesaid judgment clinches the issue in favour of the appellant/assessee herein. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and this appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
 
Decision:- Appeal allowed.

Comment:- The analogy of the case is that for determining the classification of goods, the test of commercial identity of the goods would be the relevant  factor. As the Chapter Heading 8302.00 is specifically for the parts or accessories meant for general use whereas in the given case the motor vehicle hinges and handles are used for the specific purpose, therefore they are correctly classified under chapter heading 8708.00.This was based on the remarkable decision of Supreme court in the case of G.S. Auto International Limitedv. CC Excise, Chandigarh.
 
Prepared By:- Neelam Jain
 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com