ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The application for restoration of the above appeal is allowed in terms of the High Court’s Order dated 18-12-2001 in Writ Petition No. 5970/2001.
2. The authorities below have classified the parts and accessories of electrical machinery and equipment such as fuses, switches, etc., used in tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles of the Ministry of Defence under Chapter Heading 8536.90 rejecting the claim of the assessee for classification of the goods in question under Chapter sub-heading 8710.00 as parts of “tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles, motorised”. The appellant’s claim is based upon the fact that the goods are manufactured for Ministry of Defence of the Government of India, strictly as per drawings and designs supplied by the Ministry of Defence and the goods are manufactured solely and principally for fitting into tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles.
3. We have heard Shri L.B. Attar, learned Counsel and Shri B.B. Sarkar, learned DR.
4. As per Explanatory Notes to HSN on page No. 1435 parts falling under Chapter Heading 87.10 will be covered under the said Chapter provided that they fulfil both the conditions i.e., they must be identifiable as being suitable for use solely or principally for such vehicles and they must not be excluded under the provisions of Notes to Section XVII. Note 2(f) to Chapter XVII excludes electrical machinery and equipment falling under Chapter 85 and Explanatory Notes to HSN at page 1410 relating to parts and accessories excluded by Note 2 specifying the items with reference to specific Chapter Headings. Note 7(a), (k), excludes inter alia fuses, switches and other electrical apparatus of Heading 85.30 or 85.36. The items manufactured by the appellants are identifiable as goods falling under Chapter Heading 85.36, therefore, they fall under the category of goods excluded from Chapter 87 although they are used specifically either solely or principally with armoured fighting vehicles of Chapter Heading 87.10. The case laws relied upon by the appellants, namely, the decisions in the cases of CCE v. Metrowood Engineering Works – 1989 (43) E.L.T. 660; CCE v. K.W.H Heliplastics Ltd. – 1998 (97)
F.L.T. 385 (S.C.); Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd. – 1996 (87) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.) International Auto Suppliers v. CC – 1994 (70) E.L.T. 645 and Sahney Paris Rhone Ltd. v. CCE – 1995 (77) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.) are distinguishable as none of these decisions consider the scope of an exclusion clause in Chapter Note or a Section Note.
5. For the above reasons we hold that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order; accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.