Judgment:
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Finolex Coil Cord (P) Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of the product coil cords, plug wire/cords, straight/line/connection/rosettee cord and gemini cord. The appellants classified their products under Heading No. 85.48 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff); the Assistant Collector, Pune classified these products under Heading No. 85.44 and the appellants admitted the classification under protest. Subsequently they filed an appeal with the Collector (Appeals), Bombay who held that the products under reference merited classification under Heading 85.44 of the Tariff.
2. Shri Dinesh Kumar, Company Representative appearing for the appellants referred to their ground of appeal and reiterated the submissions made before the Collector (Appeals).
3. In reply Shri M. Jayaraman, ld. JDR stated that the goods in question are not in electrical goods and they are type of cable and they are correctly classifiable under Heading No. 85.44.
4. We have carefully considered the matter. In the classification list the goods had been described as under :- (iii) Straight/line/connection/rosette cord (of any number cores/ways); (iv) Gemini cord, combination of coil cord, straight cord (any number of cores/ways).
Initially the appellants had classified the product under Heading No.84.48 which during the relevant time read as "Electrical part of machinery or apparatus not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter".
5. The department classified the product under 85.44 which during the relevant times read as under :- "Insulated (including enamelled or anodised) wire, cable (including co-exial cable) and other insulated electric conductors, whether or not fitted with conductors, optical fibre cables, made up of individually sheathed fibres whether or not assembled with electric conductors or fitted with connectors".
6. Heading No. 85.48 covers electrical parts of machinery or apparatus and is in the nature of a residuary entry and the goods could be classifiable under this heading only when they were not otherwise classifiable under any other specific heading. The cords and wires could not be considered as electric parts of the apparatus. In common parlance this would not be taken as electrical parts of the telephone apparatus.
7. The Tariff Entry under Heading 85.44 is wide enough to cover the goods in question. The Collector (Appeals) had observed that the goods in question fits in with the description under Heading No. 85.44 and that they were generally recognisable in the common trade parlance as per the description provided under Heading 85.44 and not under Heading No. 85.48. The appellants have not placed any material to controvert these findings of facts by the Collector (Appeals).
8. In appeal the appellants have submitted that the tinsel conductors was a rectangular conductor. We are not concerned with the classification of their input which was the conductor. We are concerned with the classification of the final product which are cords made from the conductors.
9. Taking all the relevant considerations in consideration we are of the view that the classification as decided by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay is correct and as a result the appeal filed by the appellants has no merit and the same is rejected.