ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. The appellants in this case manufactured Clocks. They also purchased Pen-stands, Pen-cups, Diaries etc. and fitted Digital clocks into such products. The Assistant Collector classified these articles under Sub-heading 8472.00 as “other office machines”. The asses-see claimed that the goods continued to be Clocks attracting under Heading 91.05 as “Other Clocks”. In the impugned order the Collector upheld the classification made by the Assistant Collector, resulting in the present appeal before us.
2. The appellants had requested disposal on merits. We have heard Shri D.S. Negi for the Revenue.
3. In the appeal memorandum the appellants have claimed that such articles cannot be termed as machines, machinery etc. It is also claimed that no new article emerged when the Clocks were placed in the pen-stands. In this connection they cited the Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Bush India Ltd. v. Union of India wherein it was held that merely putting an article in a wooden box, did not amount to manufacture.
4. We find that the activity of installing of Clocks in a pen-stand or a Diary is much more complex than merely putting it in a box. The Collector was right in holding that these activity resulted in bringing into existence of a new article.
5. We however accept the contention that the classification under Heading 8472.00 is not attracted. The wording in the tariff entry as well as the Explanatory Notes in the HSN do not support the claim that such articles can be termed as other office machines. The HSN general Explanatory Note to Chapter 91 says that where Clocks and watches are combined with some other articles, their classification would be governed by the rules of interpretation of the nomenclature. Shri Negi referred to the Rule 3(b) of the Rules for the Interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff. As per this rule composite goods made of different components are to be classified as if they consisted of the components which gives them their essential character. We hold that the original character of the goods in which the watches and Clocks are put would continue to prevail. In other words the composite articles would be called a pen-stand with Clock or a Diary with Clock and not as a Clock with a pen-stand or a Diary.
6. We thus find that the classification of the composite articles in terms of cited rule would be governed by the sufficient component. Therefore, the Assistant Collector will have to classify each such article as per the characteristic of the component other than the clocks. On these observations, we set aside both the lower orders and remit the proceedings back to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector who shall examine the composition of each such products and re-determine the classification in de novo proceedings.