- (1.)THE appellant manufactured various goods including Conductor Accessories and Miscellaneous Fittings, P.G. Clamps, Repair Sleeves and about sixty other items. The appellant claims that all these items are used as Accessories/Fittings in electrical transmission lines. It is therefore contended that the products are rightfully classifiable under Tariff Entry 85.48 which provides for "electrical parts of machinery or apparatus not specified or included elsewhere in this Chapter". The Chapter in question is Chapter 85. Chapter 85 falls within Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Heading of the Chapter reads as:
Electrical machinery and equipment and parts thereof; sound recorders and reproducers, television image and sound recorders and reproducers, and parts and accessories of such articles.

According to the appellant it is the admitted case that all its products are supplied to State Electricity Boards and two other power agencies. They claim that their products are classifiable under Tariff Entry 85.48 because the items produced by them are electrical parts of an apparatus within the meaning of that tariff entry. The apparatus in question is said to be the transmission lines. According to the appellant this position had been accepted by the Department of Central Excise and the classification list showing these items as assessable to duty under Tariff Entry 85.48 had been accepted by the Department as far back as in 1989. A show cause notice was, however, issued to the appellant by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. It was alleged in the show cause notice that the items were various classifiable under tariff entry 7326.90, 76.08 and 7616.90. These three tariff entries read respectively as follows:

Other articles of iron or steel Forged or stamped, but not further worked:
JUDGEMENT_138_LAWS(SC)9_2005.JPG
(2.)IN the show cause notice the reason given by the ACCE for the challenge to the existing classification was on the principle that the products would have to be classified according to their constituent material. Since the various products were manufactured either by iron ore or aluminium, they were properly classifiable under the three sub -headings noted above. The classification list was accordingly approved with this amendment. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the collector. The Collector did not interfere with the finding of the ACCE (Collector -Appeals). The matter came up before the Central Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal held that the transmission lines basically consist of electricity conducting cable and power for supporting and keeping the cables in position etc. These transmission cables, according to the Tribunal, "cannot be called machinery or apparatus at all".
(3.)BEING aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the appellant has preferred this appeal. Accordingly to the appellant the Tribunal has arrived at its conclusion that transmission cables cannot be called apparatus without any discussions whatsoever. It is stated that if the transmission lines were in fact apparatus, then the products in question would be electrical parts of an apparatus. It is also pointed out to us that articles mentioned in Section XVI were specifically excluded by Section Note 1(f) of Section XV. It may be mentioned that three tariff headings under which the Department seeks to classify the appellant's goods all occur within this particular section. Tariff heading 7326 appears under Chapter 73 which deals with articles of iron or steel. The remaining two articles appear in Chapter 76 which deals with aluminium and articles thereof. Both these chapters fall within Section XV which is headed Base metals and Articles of Base metals. It is contended that unless the respondent and the Tribunal had explicitly found on cogent material that the articles in question were not classifiable under chapter 85 under Tariff heading 85.48, they could not proceed under any of the chapters under Section XV.
The approach of the Tribunal was cursory. Apart from the axiomatic statement that transmission cables cannot be called machinery or apparatus at all, there is no reason in support of this conclusion. The consequence of this is that the Tribunal's decision cannot be upheld. By reason of the provisions of Section Note 1(f) of Section XV, the Tribunal must address itself to the question whether the transmission lines could be apparatus at all. For the purpose of Tariff Heading 85.48 our attention was drawn to several definitions of the word 'apparatus' by the appellant who has contended that it had an arguable case that the transmission lines ware equipment for the purpose of the transmission of electricity and that the parts manufactured for such transmission fall within Tariff Heading 85.48. None of these definitions have been considered by the Tribunal. It has proceeded purely on the basis as if the sole test for classification under the Act was the constitution of the particular item. In our view there is no invariable test to determine the question of classification. It would depend upon the nature of the tariff heading. The constituents or the elements of a transmission cable would not be of nay relevance in deciding whether a transmission cable is an apparatus or not. If Tribunal comes to the conclusion, deposit the material being produced before it, that the transmission lines are not electrical apparatus, then of course, there is no question of the appellant's goods being classified under Tariff Heading 85.48. However, if the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that transmission lines may be apparatus, then the further question would arise whether the products manufactured by the appellant could be described to be electrical parts.