ORDER
Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides. The impugned goods are used for locking lift door as a safety device. The Appellants are claiming classification of the same as a part of the lift under Heading No. 84.31 whereas the Revenue has classified the same as a lock under Heading No. 83.01. We find that the Lower Appellate Authority has taken recourse to the HSN explanatory notes under Heading 83.01 to come to the conclusion that the impugned products are more appropriately classified as a lock under Heading 83.01.
2. The ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants very vehemently argued that the impugned goods have no other use. They are always specifically used as a part of the lift without which the lift cannot effectively function. On the other hand, the ld. DR argued that Heading 83.01 provides a more specific description for the goods in question as they are operated as locks electrically when the power is available and in the event of a power shut down, the lock has a lever which is used as key to open the door.
3. After considering the arguments as well as the explanatory notes and the interpretative rules, we are of the view that though the impugned goods are used as a part of the lift, the description under Heading 83.01 is more appropriate to cover the classification of the goods since the same covers locks which according to the HSN explanatory notes cover locks which are operated by a key, lever as well as locks controlled by a combination of letters and also electrically operated locks for street doors, lift doors etc. Since the Heading 83.01 more specifically covers the impugned goods, we hold that the impugned orders passed by the lower authorities are correct in law and the same require no interference. As such the appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)