Arm-Blade Assembly without Motor Classified as Parts, Not Complete Wiper: CESTAT [Read Order]

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai held that the arm-blade assembly without the motor was classifiable as ‘part’ under CTH 85129000, not a complete wiper under CTH 85124000.

Mitsuba Sical India Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, appealed against the Order-in-Appeal from the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I), Chennai. This impugned order was dated 28.10.2016. The main issue for the appeal was the classification of the imported goods, in this case, the Arm-Blade Assembly under Customs Tariff Heading (“CTH”) 85124000.

Read More: Customs Fails to DiscloseMethod Adopted to Redetermine Confiscated Goods Value: CESTAT Remands Matterfor Revaluation

The appellant had self-assessed the item under CTH 85129000 as parts of windscreen wipers. The Department classified it under CTH 85124000. The Commissioner set aside confiscation and penalties but upheld the reclassification done by the Department.

The appellant argued that since it was only one component of a complete windscreen wiper, it cannot be classified as a complete system. Further, the essential element in this system was a motor which had not been imported. They also pushed for the application of Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation (GIR) and on explanatory notes which indicate that windscreen wipers are motor-driven devices. The authorized representative for the department argued that the Rule had been applied correctly and the re-classification had been rightly done.

Read More : Blasting Services for DiggingWells for Farmers Qualify as Agricultural Services: CESTAT Sets Aside TaxDemand

The two-member bench, consisting of Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical) and P. Dinesh (Judicial), held that the principal driving mechanism is needed for the imported items to be classified as complete windscreen wipers.

Further, as the Heading 85129000 specifically covers “Parts of the articles of heading 8512”, the subject goods would fall within this description. The Tribunal solidified the claim that these imported goods are rightfully classified as parts.

It also held that Rule 2(a) cannot be applied as it can apply only in those cases where an incomplete article substantially represents the complete article. Since there is no complete article, due to the absence of a motor, the Rule is inapplicable.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates