Per Shri V.P. Gulati :

The issue in the appeal relates to classification of Wind Shield Washer Pumps. The Ld. Lower authority has under the impugned order held the goods to be classifiable under T.H. 8424. The appellants, however, seeks the classification of the goods under T.H. 8413. The two headings for convenience of reference are reproduced below:-

2. The Ld. advocate for the appellants pleaded that the appellant's equipments comprises of a Centrifugal pump with a small water tank and other arrangements for delivery of the water. He has pleaded that the pump delivers the water through the nozzels in sprays at the wind shield for the purpose of cleaning the same. He has pleaded inasmuch as the equipment basically functions as a Centrifugal pump operated with the battery the correct classification would be 8413.

3. His attention was drawn to the scope of T.H. 8413 and the chapter notes under HSN underwhich it has been clearly mentioned that the equipments under T.H. 8413 covered are such of the items which are intended for raising or otherwise continuously displacing the volume of liquids. A perusal of the catalogue filed in the book shows that the equipment in question before us is capable of delivering the water in spraying of 5 seconds duration. It was pointed out to the Ld. Advocate in this back ground that it cannot be held that the equipment was designed to continuously deliver the water and for the that reason therefore the goods in our view would not falling under T.H. 8413. At this stage, the Ld. advocate pleaded that classification, as claimed by the department, 8424 would also not be appropriate inasmuch as this T.H. covers only mechanical appliances in the nature of spray guns, fire extinguisher etc which are for the purpose of spraying liquids. He has pleaded as it is the equipment cannot be considered as mechanical appliance as it is an item of machinery. Further more, he has pleaded that the goods in question are not doing the spraying function. The water is delivered in 5 seconds spurts through the nozzel at the wind shield and this cannot be equated with spraying function.

4. Heard the Ld. JDR for the department.

5. We find force in the plea of the Ld. advocate that 8424 would not be the appropriate tariff heading. As it is under T.H. 8424 in the HSN the scope of tariff heading as set out thereunder is limited and covers fire extinguishers, spray guns, and similar appliances; steam or sand blasting machines, syringes, sprays and powder distributors, irrigation system etc. The type of equipment in question is not covered within the ambit of T.H. 84.24 under the HSN. We observe that the Central Excise Tariff follows the scheme of HSN and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of CCE Vs Wood Craft Products Ltd. reported in 1995 (77) ELT 23= 1995 (7) RLT 661 (S.C.)at para 18 held as follows:-

18. We are of the view that the Tribunal as well as the High Court fell to the error of overlooking the fact that the structure of the Central Excise it is based on the internationally accepted nomenclature found in the HSN therefore, any dispute relating to tariff classification must, as far as excisable, be resolved with reference to the nomenclature indicated by the HSN unless there be an express different intention indicated by the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 itself. The definition of a term in the ISI Glossary, which has a different purpose, cannot, in case of a conflict, override the clear indication of the meaning of an identical expression in the same context in the HSN. In the HSN, block board is included within the meaning of the expression "simil