Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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