ORDER
C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. The issue that arises for decision in this appeal is the correct central excise classification of “Roller Assembly”. The item was originally assessed under Chapter Heading 8504 as parts of transformer. The impugned order has changed this classification to
Heading 86.07 which heading is for parts of railway or railway locomotive or rolling stock. The impugned order has held that the product is railway rolling stock.
2. It may be noted at the outset that the impugned order has been passed relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of United Engg. Industries v. CCE, Indore, 2000 (123) E.L.T. 1009.
3. The product
The appellant has described the product and its function as under :-
“2.01 The appellants are manufacturing 320 dia twin roller assembly for BHEL, Bhopal, as per their drawing 14993700001 (herein after referred to as Roller assembly). The roller assembly is specifically designed and manufactured to be fitted with the base of the tanks of power transformer of BHEL to facilitate movement & positioning of transformer at the erection site, and also for its maintenance including draining and refilling of oil. The roller assembly has been identified as part No. 6 in the Sectional View of 250 MVA 21/230 KVA. Generator transformer (Marked as Annexure B-1).
2.02 The roller assembly having been designed solely and principally for BHEL power transformers has no other application or use nor it can be marketed else where. It is a part solely and exclusively of the transformer as certified by DGM(C). Transformer Sales Division, BHEL Bhopal (Annexure B-2).
2.03 The roller assembly is supplied by BHEL to their customers duly fitted in the transformer and their price is included in the value transformer”.
4. During the hearing of the case, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the classification of the product under Heading 8607 is wholly inappropriate as roller assembly is not a railway item. Nor is it suitable or designed for use in railways. The learned Counsel also submitted that such classification is also contrary to Note 3 to Section XVII inasmuch as that note specifically states that parts or accessories which are not suitable for use solely or principally with the articles of Chapters 86 to 88 cannot be brought under heading. He also submitted that such a classification is contrary to HSN explanatory note to Tariff Heading 8604 also as that note states that “when mounted on a simple wheeled platforms and not on true railway or tramway underframes (not constituting, therefore, true railway or tramway rolling stock), machines, measuring instruments and other equipment, are excluded from this heading and fall in other more specific heading (Headings 84.25, 84.26, 84.26 (sic), 84.29, 84.30 etc.”). It is the appellants contention that roller assembly is not “true railway” or “Tramway rolling stock” but only “wheeled platform”.
5. We have heard the learned DR who stood by the classification under the impugned orders.
6. We are in agreement with the learned Counsel for the appellants that roller assembly in question cannot form railway roiling stock. “Rolling stock” means “the wheeled transportation equipment of the rail road” according to Websters Comprehensive Dictionary. In commercial parlance also that is the meaning of rolling stock. The impugned orders, instead, seems to have taken a view that whatever rolls on rail is rolling stock. The appellants contentions based on HSN notes also seems to merit accepted. The classification under Tariff Heading 86.07 would appear to be incorrect and inappro-
priate. All the same since the impugned order has relied on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in another case, we consider it necessary to place this issue before a Larger Bench for reconsideration the issue of classification.
7. In view of the above, registry is directed to place the matter be
fore the Hon’ble President for considering the constituting of a Larger Bench
to consider the issue.