M/S. H.V. INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 729 · Decided: 20-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. H.V. INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.
v.
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS
JULY 20, 2006
[ASHOK BHAN AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985-Tariff Heading 85.43 or 85.36--"Power
Controller" manufactured by assessee---Has individual functions as it does
A
B
the function of controlling/regulating electric current/power in the circuit- C
It cannot be treated as an apparatus for making or protecting switching or
making connections to or in electrical circuits-Hence, such machine/
apparatus would fall under Heading 85.43 and not under Heading 85. 36.
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is
whether the machine/apparatus known as "Power Controller" manufactured D
by assessee is classifiable under Heading 85.43 of the Central Excise Tariff
Act, 1985 or under Heading 85.36.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: I. Heading 85.36 covers electrical apparatus for switching or E
protecting electrical circuits, or for making connections to or in electrical
circuits while Heading 85.43 covers electrical machines or apparatus having
individual functions not specified or included elsewhere in the Chapter.
[732-C, DJ
2. The fact that tlie use of 'Power Controller' is to regulate the flow of
electricity to the object in question, the same cannot be treated as an apparatus
for making or protecting switching or making connections to or in electrical
circuits. Its only function is to control the degree of illumination and outflow
F
of heat, i.e., it functions as a light dimmer and speed controller. The electrical
appliances or apparatus under consideration has individual functions as it G
does the function of controlling/regulating the electric current/power so as
to feed the required quantum of current to the other equipments connected to
the circuits. Its function is to provide a source of current variable at the option
of the user to the load to which it is connected. Such machine or apparatus
729
H
730
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A would fall under residuary entry 85.43 and not under 85.36. (732-D-GJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4436 of 200 I.
From the Order No. C-1/78-81/WZB/2001 dated IO. 1.200 I of the Customs,
'
B
Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, (West Zonal Bench) Mumbai in
Appeal No. E/4705/95 SB (WR) (relevant Order pertaining to this Appeal
being Order No. C-1180/WZB/200 I.
WITH
·~
c
CA. Nos. 4439, 4337 and 4438 of2001.
M.F. Humayunisa and Siddharth Dutta (for R. Nedumaran) for the
Appellant.
Gopal Subramanium, ASG, Harish Chandra, Asheesh Jain, B.K. Prasad
D and Manpreet Singh Doabia (for P. Parmeswaran) for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BHAN, J. The common question for consideration in these four appeals
by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad (for short
E "the respondent") is to the classification of "power controllers" manufactured
by each of the four appellants to these appeals.
The appellants inter alia are manufacturers of electrical goods namely,
power controllers also known as Light Dimmers and Heat Controllers. Until
F June, I 99 I, the appellants had classified the "power controllers" under Chapter
85, Sub-heading 8543.00 under the Central Excise Tariff Act (for short "the
Tariff Act"). With effect from 25.07.1.991, the appellants started classifying
"power controllers" under Sub-heading 8536.90.
The Department did not accept the classification list and issued show
G cause notices dated 1.6. I 992, 5. I 1.1992, 3.5. I 993 and 4. IO. I 993, respectively to
the fourth respondent herein inter alia alleging that the correct classification
~
of the "power controllers" is under Sub-heading 8543.00 and not under Sub-
heading 8536.90. Identical show cause notices proposing to deny the proposed
classification by the appellant and confirm the classification earlier claimed
H
and approved were issued, the notices also proposed recovery of duty short
H.V. INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD. "· COMMR. OF CENTR<L EXCISE & CUSTOMS [BHAN, J.] 731
paid, caused by the difference between the duty payable under each of the A
two headings. The said show cause notices made allegation relating to
valuation of goods as well, but the subject matter of these appeals is restricted
to the issue of the determination of classification of"power controllers". The
respondent submitted their reply to the show cause notice vi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.