Case Law Details
Shiroki Auto Components India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT Ahmedabad has held that the child parts imported by the appellant are classifiable under Tariff Item 9401 90 00 as parts of vehicle seats as declared by the importer-assessee and not under Tariff Item 8708 99 00 as parts and accessories of motor vehicles of Heading 8701 to 8705 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 as assessed by the Customs. The imported child parts where assembled into round recliners which were further used to make recliner assembly which in turn was welded into seat frame for manufacture of complete seat for motor vehicles. The Tribunal noted that classification of round recliner and all subsequent goods under Heading 9401 was not disputed by department and that vehicle seats are not covered under Heading 8708. It also observed that child parts were not used in the motor vehicle but were used in the manufacture of other parts and were an integral part of motor vehicle seats.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT
The brief facts of the case are that the appellant have imported child parts from Japan which are then assembled to manufacture Round Recliner Assembly in India and then said Round Recliner Assembly is dispatched to factory at Haryana where the recliner welding assembly is completed and thereafter it is sent to Maruti factory where it is welded and fixed on the seat of motor vehicles. The case of the department is that the child / spare parts imported by the appellant are classifiable under heading 8708 of CTH as parts and accessories motor vehicle, as against the appellant‘s claim that the imported parts are parts of motor vehicle seats and classifiable under 9401 9000. The Adjudicating Authority in the speaking order held that child/ spare parts imported by the appellant is correctly classifiable under CTH 8708. For this conclusion, he placed reliance on the judgments of Pragati Silicones Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Delhi – Manu/SC/2072/2007, GS Auto International Limited vs. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh – Manu/SC/0031/2003 and Cast Metal Industries Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Kolkata – Manu/SC/1369/2015.
2. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao along with Shri Arjyadeep Rai learned advocates appearing on behalf of the appellant made a detailed submission. He submits that in the present case explanatory notes of Section XVII specifically excludes the vehicle seats of heading 9401; Motor vehicle seats are specifically mentioned under heading 9401 and this heading also covers parts of seats under heading 9401 9000 therefore, parts of motor vehicle seats can only fall under 9401 9000. He further submits that US Customs Ruling NY R04585 dated 15.08.2006 in regard to very same product i.e. Recliner Assembly has held the same to be parts of seats used in motor vehicles. As regards the judgments relied on by the Adjudicating Authority, he submits that all the three judgments are clearly distinguishable as the facts in those cases are different from the case in hand. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
