Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Capcoil Industries

Collector of Central Excise vs Capcoil Industries

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 11, 2000
~5 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/17650

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Capcoil Industries

Legal References

Reported In
(2000)(119)ELT670TriDel

Excerpt

.....in the case of usa ismal limited v. collector of central excise, 1992 (57) e.l.t. 475 (tribunal), by the appellant has misplaced because in that case. tribunal had observed that "the learned advocate, before us, has fairly stated that the goods manufactured are pliers which is classified under 51a(1)". accepting this submission, the tribunal had considered the definition of plier as "a small instrument with two handles and two grasping jaws, usually long and roughened working on a pivet used for holding small objects and cutting, bending and shaping wire." this would more be true in respect of small hand crimping tool, sample of which is shown to me in the hearing. however, the goods now in question, though they perform the same function, cannot be classified under heading 8205 in view of their size and weight and other additional feature, and the tribunal's observation regarding their nature would obviously not apply. i have the benefit of seeing the sample of the goods. in the result, i set aside the assistant collector's classification of the goods and direct the classification under heading 84.63." 2. the revenue is in appeal against the above finding. the respondents have not appeared for hearing today despite receipt of notice by them.(acknowledgement card sent on 21-9-1999 has been received back by the registry). accordingly, we are deciding the matter after hearing the learned d.r.3. learned d.r. submitted that, apart from the order-in-appeal being at variance with the classification sought by die manufacturer or approved by the assistant collector, it is also not in conformity with the scheme of central excise classification. heading 8205 is for hand tools, 84.63 is for machine tools and 84.67 is for tools working in the hand. from this itself it would be clear that heading 84.63 is not attracted, as the item in question is not a machine tool. he referred us in this context to notes to section xvi of the explanatory notes to hsn which clarifies with.....

Full Judgment

1. The issue involved in this appeal is the classification of crimping tools. The assessee claimed classification under Heading 82.05, which is for hand tools. The Assistant Collector approved the classification under Heading 84.67, which is for tools for working in the hand, pneumatic, hydraulic with self-contained non-electric motor. When the matter went in appeal before the Collector (Appeals), he changed the classification to Heading 84.63 holding as under: "The other heading that could be considered is Heading No. 84.63, since the commodity in question is machinery tools and it works without removing the material. Given the nature of these machines and the functions they perform, this appears more appropriate. The reliance upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of USA Ismal Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, 1992 (57) E.L.T. 475 (Tribunal), by the appellant has misplaced because in that case.

Tribunal had observed that "the learned advocate, before us, has fairly stated that the goods manufactured are pliers which is classified under 51A(1)". Accepting this submission, the Tribunal had considered the definition of plier as "a small instrument with two handles and two grasping jaws, usually long and roughened working on a pivet used for holding small objects and cutting, bending and shaping wire." This would more be true in respect of small hand crimping tool, sample of which is shown to me in the hearing. However, the goods now in question, though they perform the same function, cannot be classified under Heading 8205 in view of their size and weight and other additional feature, and the Tribunal's observation regarding their nature would obviously not apply. I have the benefit of seeing the sample of the goods.

In the result, I set aside the Assistant Collector's classification of the goods and direct the classification under Heading 84.63." 2. The Revenue is in appeal against the above finding. The respondents have not appeared for hearing today despite receipt of notice by them.

(Acknowledgement card sent on 21-9-1999 has been received back by the Registry). Accordingly, we are deciding the matter after hearing the learned D.R.3. Learned D.R. submitted that, apart from the order-in-appeal being at variance with the classification sought by die manufacturer or approved by the Assistant Collector, it is also not in conformity with the scheme of Central Excise classification. Heading 8205 is for hand tools, 84.63 is for machine tools and 84.67 is for tools working in the hand. From this itself it would be clear that Heading 84.63 is not attracted, as the item in question is not a machine tool. He referred us in this context to Notes to Section XVI of the Explanatory Notes to HSN which clarifies with reference to the scope of Heading 84.67 as under: - "This heading covers tools which incorporate a compressed air motor (or compressed air operated portion), an internal combustion motor or any other non-electric motor (e.g., small hydraulic turbines); the compressed air, and in the case of the internal combustion motor the ignition batteries are generally separate. In pneumatic tools the action of the compressed air is sometimes supplemented by hydraulic connections.

The heading covers such tools only if for working in the hand. The expression "tools for working in the hand" means tools designed to be held in the hand during use, and also heavier tools (such as earth rammers) which are portable, that is, which can be lifted and moved by hand by the user, in particular while work is in progress, and which are also designed to be controlled and directed by hand during operation. To obviate the fatigue of taking their full weight during operation they may be used with auxiliary supporting devices (e.g., tripods, jacklegs, and overhead lifting tackle).

The heading excludes tools which, because their weight, size, etc., obviously cannot be used in the hand as described above. It also excludes tools (whether or not portable) fitted with a base late or other device for fixing to the wall, bench, floor, etc. and those with provision for running on rails (e.g., machines for slotting or drilling railways sleepers.

The heading further excludes combinations consisting of a tool holder with one or more tools, and a separate spark-ignition internal combustion piston engine with a flexible shaft; the tool holder is classified in Heading 84.66, the spark-ignition internal combustion piston engine with its flexible shaft in Heading 84.07, and the tools in their own appropriate headings." The D.R. also referred to the order-in-original and stated that the said order was passed in the light of Explanatory Notes in the HSN.4. It appears to be clear that the item in question is not a machine tool. Therefore, its classification under Heading 84.63 cannot be correct. The item is used with hydraulic power, though it is a hand-held tool. Thus, the description under Heading 84.67 is quite appropriate for the goods. The Explanatory Notes in the HSN make it clear that Heading 84.67 is for hand-held tools. In these facts, we feel that the classification of the item under Heading 84.67, as originally approved by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector, was correct. The appeal of the Revenue is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order-in-appeal is set aside.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial