Classification Dispute: MVAC as a Heat Pump

The court delves into the legal intricacies of tariff classification in a case involving the categorization of an MVAC as a heat pump. With a focus on the court’s legal analysis, the case sheds light on the importance of adherence to international standards like the HSN for resolving classification disputes. Explore how the court’s interpretation impacts industry practices and trade regulations in this complex legal battle.

Facts

• The manufacturer is disentitled to the concessional rate of duty for their product as it was declared to not be a heat pump
• The product is deemed ineligible for the concessional rate of duty under Sl. No. 2 of Notification No. 155/86-CE dated 1.3.1986
• The product was considered a complete machine and not a part of a machine
• The CESTAT reversed the decision and held that the value of Lithium Bromide should not be included in the assessable value of the machine
• The matter has been remanded to the adjudicating authority for computation of the payable duty
• The appeal is filed under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to determine if the product is classifiable as a heat pump under heading 84.18 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
• The classification is important for the appellant as heat pumps under Chapter 8418 were exempted from excise duty under notification 155/86-CE dated 1.3.1986
• The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise negated the manufacturer’s description of the product as heat pumps, leading to appeals and counter-appeals
• The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) agreed with the manufacturer’s claim, but the Revenue appealed leading to the decision by CESTAT
• Appellant filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court
• High Court dismissed the writ petition on 26.3.2009
• Statutory remedy of appeal to this Court is available
• Resulted in the present appeal

Also Read: Insurance Claim Repudiation due to Fire Incident: Court’s Legal Analysis

Arguments

• The appellant argues that the product should be classified as a heat pump based on the machine’s inbuilt functionality to produce hot water.
• The appellant contends that any interpretation of ‘heat pump’ beyond the definition provided in the HSN is not justified.
• The appellant asserts that their MVAC qualifies as a heat pump, providing both chilled and hot water as output, due to additional components installed in the device.
• The appellant relies on the HSN definition of a heat pump and argues that any deviation from this definition for classification would be contrary to established legal principles.
• The appellant highlights industry-related decisions where products similar to theirs were classified as heat pumps for tariff purposes.
• The appellant disputes the respondent’s claim that the primary function of MVAC is to produce chilled water, stating that the machine also produces hot water as an important feature.
• The appellant emphasizes that the modification of VAC into MVAC does not change the primary purpose of the device as intended for refrigeration and cooling, supporting their classification as heat pumps.
• The appellant refutes the respondent’s argument that the production of hot water is only incidental, suggesting that customers purchase the product for both hot and cold water output.
• The appellant asserts that the product being capable of heating water by a small degree justifies its classification as a heat pump, alongside its cooling capabilities.
• The appellant argues that since similar products were taxed at a lower rate, MVAC should also be considered a heat pump to avoid discriminatory treatment.
• The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue in the present matter
• In contrast, manufacturers in the cases of Blue Star and Voltas succeeded before the Tribunal
• The decision cited by the senior counsel for the appellant is not persuasive for the appellant’s favor
• In the case of Voltas, the Revenue classified their Vapour Absorption Unit under Chapter 8415, not as refrigeration equipment under Chapter 8418
• Chapter Note 7 to Chapter 84 is referred to in the argument
• It is argued that the MVAC does not qualify as a heat pump as per the HSN definition

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Right to Privacy in Pregnancy: Examining the Inviolable Nature of the Human Personality

Analysis

• Taking guidance from HSN Classification is important in understanding tariff classification in a taxing statute.
• The commonly accepted meanings in trade and popular sense should guide the interpretation of a taxing statute.
• Internationally accepted nomenclature from HSN is a safe guide for resolving disputes related to tariff classification.
• HSN is the basis for the structure of Central excise tariff in the Act.
• In case of doubt, HSN can help ascertain the true meaning of any expression used in the Act.
• Functional classification is important, especially for machines capable of performing multiple functions.
• For multi-functional machines, classification should be based on their principal function.
• The definition of terms in the ISI Glossary cannot override the meaning in the HSN if in conflict.
• Taxing statute words must be interpreted in their commonly accepted trade and popular meaning.
• Ambiguous words must be interpreted in the popular sense by those familiar with the subject matter.
• Chapter Note 7 acts as a tie-breaker for classification.
• The HSN is used for various purposes beyond trade such as taxes, tariffs, and economic analysis.
• Exceptions exist when a word has a special meaning in a statute.
• Chapter, Heading, and sub-heading help in classification.
• The primary objective of the HSN is to facilitate trade and aid in classification.
• The HSN must be followed unless there is a different intention indicated by the Indian tariff.
• The MVAC primary function is to produce chilled water even if it can also produce hot water.
• The HSN definition must have overriding influence for classification purposes.
• The Code is essential for custom controls and procedures.
• The market/common parlance test shows the MVAC is primarily a chiller and not a heat pump.
• Chapter Note 7 emphasizes principal purpose for classification.
• The internationally accepted HSN nomenclature must guide tariff classification.
• Customers primarily purchase MVAC for chilling purposes.
• The output of MVAC is cold/chilled water, not intense heat as with heat pumps.
• The end use of MVAC is to produce chilled water.
• The cooling machine’s ability to produce hot water does not change its primary function of cooling.
• Comparison made to a character in a play by Oscar Wilde to highlight a similar predicament.
• Market perception and purchase behavior classify the machine as a cooling device, not a heat pump.
• The product is declared to fall under Sub-heading 8418.10 of the central excise Tariff Act as refrigerating equipment, not a heat pump.

Also Read: Supreme Court Judgment on Suretech Hospital Medical Negligence Case: A Tale of Negligence and Unnecessary Risk-Taking

Decision

• The view of the CESTAT is affirmed.
• The appeals are dismissed.
• Parties will bear their own costs.

Case Title: M/S.THERMAX LTD. THR. ITS DIRECTOR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,PUNE 1 (2022 INSC 1078)

Case Number: C.A. No.-006048-006050 / 2009

Click here to read/download original judgement