ORDER
P.C. Jain, Member (T)
1. Matter called. None for the appellant. There is, however, a request for deciding the case on merits on the basis of available records.
2. We have heard ld. JDR Shri S. Nunthuk. Short question involved in this matter is classification of the filters for air and liquids used for different machineries such as I.C. Engine, Textile, powerloom and some individual machines falling under Tariff Heading 84.79. The revenue has assessed the aforesaid filters under Tariff Heading 84.21 which reads as follows :
“84.21 – Centrifuges, including centrifugal dryers; filtering or purifying machinery and apparatus, for liquids or gases”.
The Revenue has relied on Section Note 2(a) of Section XVI which provides that where parts are specifically mentioned under any specific heading of Chapter 84 or 85, they would be classified as such. It has also relied upon Rule 3(a) of the Rules of Interpretation to Central Excise Tariff. Consequently, in view of the tariff description in Tariff Heading 8421.00 as mentioned above, all the filters for liquid and air have been classified under the said heading. In coming to this conclusion, ld. DR points out that the authority below has also relied upon Notes to HSN which specifically states that all air filters will be covered by the Heading 84.21 meant for filtering or purifying machinery and apparatus for gases.
3. As against the aforesaid stand of the Revenue, the appellant’s stand is that these filters are specially designed for various machines and they are used as solely or principally as parts of those machines. Therefore, the appellant has relied on Section Note 2(b) of Section XVI of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 that such parts should be classified under the heading in which the machines where these parts are used are classifiable. The appellants have also relied in the written submissions on the following two judgments :
1. Joseph Leslie Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay -1987 (31) E.L.T. 203.
2. Kanwar Sewing Machine Co., New Delhi v. Collector of Customs, Bombay – 1983 (12) E.L.T. 804.
It has been held in the above two judgments cited in the written submissions that Note 2(b) of Section XVI requires that a part, if suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine, should be classified with machines of that kind. Hence it has been stated that the filters for different machines should be classified under different headings of the Tariff in which those machines are classified as mentioned above.
4. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced by both the sides. Dispute herein is whether Section Note 2(a) or 2(b) of Section XVI would apply. We observe from a reading of the Section Note 2(a) which will be applicable in the present case i.e. where any parts are specifically mentioned in any tariff heading, they are to be classified in the said tariff heading except the excluded tariff headings mentioned in Note 2(a). It is not the case of either side that any of the goods are classified under excluded tariff headings in the present case. Note 2(b), in our opinion, refers to “other parts” i.e. the parts which are “other” than mentioned in Note 2(a). In other words, parts of machines falling under Chapter 84 or 85 which are specifically mentioned in any tariff heading would be classified under that tariff heading and only the “other parts” which are not so specifically mentioned in any tariff heading would be governed by Section Note 2(b). In view of the foregoing, we do not find any substance in the appellant’s appeal before us. Consequently, we confirm the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.