ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This is a Revenue appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 1133/99-C.E., dated 28-10-1999 rejecting the contention of the Revenue that Spools, Bobbins and Coil Former manufactured by the assessee does not fall under Tariff Heading 8504.00 of the CET but falls under Chapter Heading 3926.00.
2. It is the Revenue’s case that the items are used as parts of transformers as noted in the impugned order. The parts of transformers arc covered under Chapter Heading 8504.00. It is the further contention of the Revenue that Section Note 1(c) of Section XVI of the CET Act excludes the goods bobbins, spools, cops, cones, reels or similar support of any material from the Chapter Headings 39, 40, 44 or 48. In view of this specific exclusion in Section Note 1(c) of Section XVI from Chapter Heading 39, they arc required to be classified only under Heading 8504.00.
3. We have heard learned JCDR Smt. Shobha L. Chary and learned Chartered Accountant Shri Madhukar.
4. Learned JCDR submitted that the issue is no longer res integra and the Spools and Bobbins, predominantly made of plastics, on which wire is coiled and thereafter used as part of transformers have been held to be classifiable under Heading 39.26 and in view of Section Note 1(c) of Section XVI of CET Act as decided by this Bench in the case of CCE, Bangalore v. Die Crafts – 2003 (155) E.L.T. 569 (Tri. – Bang.).
5. The learned Chartered Accountant pointed out that the metallic portion of the bobbin and parts of transformers play a predominant role and that should be considered as having been made of metal and not excluded by Section Note 1(c) of Section XVI, as held by the Commissioner. He submits that even in the case of CCE v. Die Crafts (supra), the Bench has noted that no evidence was produced to show that the essential characteristic of goods was brought out by the metallic pins. He relied on the Certificate issued by the Chairman of the Centre fur Electronics Design Technology, IIS, Bangalore-12 who has given an opinion on the item being an integral part of transformers and opined that they are not general purpose plastic parts.
6. On a careful consideration and examination of the Certificate relied, we notice that the Certificate opines that the items form a part of the transformer. It also states that this part is meant for accommodating the coils of wound metal wires that are required to form various windings of a transformer. It also states that it is not possible to build a transformer without these coil formers and they become an integral part of transformers. They cannot be used for any other purpose and that they are not general purpose plastic parts. In no way this certificate helps the assessee. The fact remains that this opinion does not state that the plastic parts does not have any predominant role at all and it is only the metallic portion, which has the predominant role. Be that as it may, the Section Note 1(c) normally excludes bobbins, spools, cops, cones, reels or similar support of any material from the Chapter Headings 39, 40, 44 or 48. It does not lay down any criteria of predominance of plastic or metallic portion. So long as the item is bobbins, spools, cops cones, reels or similar support of any material, they, get excluded from the Chapter Heading 39. They have to be treated as part of transformers and, therefore, the judgment relied by JCDR in the case of CCE v. Die Crafts would apply to the facts of the case. The judgment is not distinguishable. The Tribunal has clearly held that in view of the Section Note 1(c) of Section XVI, the item is excluded from Chapter 39. The item is part of transformers in terms of certificate produced and also considered so for exclusion under Chapter Heading 39, in terms of Section Note 1(c) of Section XVI of the CET. The Order of the Commissioner is not proper and legal. The same is required to be set aside by allowing the Revenue Appeal. Appeal allowed.