Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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