9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iff Heading 84.59 (1) of the C.T.A., 1975. On appeal filed against the order of the Assistant Collector, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) held that assessment of the imported machine to customs duty should have been properly done under Heading 84.59 (2) of Customs Tariff Act, or failing that under Heading 84.45/48. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and allowed the appeal filed by the appellants. The present appeal before us has been filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay against the said order of the Collector (Appeals). 2. During the hearing before us Shri J. Gopi Nath, learned S.D.R. has argued for the Appellant - Collector and Shri F.H.J. Taleyar Khan, learned Advocate has argued for the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pose machine to plug carburettor body. It is not capable of doing aforesaid functions. The machine in question can not, therefore, be considered to be a machine-tool for working metal as envisaged in Tariff Heading 84.45/48. The imported machine does not fit in the definition of machine tools. It does not employ contract tools. It is a composite machine falling under Tariff Heading 84.59. According to Section Note 3 of Section XVI of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, composite machines are to be classified as if consisting only of that component or as being that machine which performs the principal function. Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff says that a machine which is used for more than one purpose is, for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the purview of sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.59. Sub-heading (i) of Heading 84.59 is a residuary heading and it should not be resorted to. Chartered Engineer's certificate was produced before the Assistant Collector of Customs in support of the contention of the appellant and Chartered Engineer Brig. Soli B. Jambusarwalla (Retd.) was also produced before the Assistant Collector for cross-examination with reference to the certificate granted by him. The Assistant Collector neither discussed about the certificate in his Order-in-original nor he cross-examined Shri Jambusarwalla. Drawings were also produced before the Assistant Collector. He did not also comment on the drawings. In view of the functions performed by the machine, it should b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... achine submitted by the respondents. The respondents have not submitted any catalogue as, it is stated, the machine was tailor made as per their order specification. As directed by us during the hearing, they submitted a copy of the purchase Order No. IMP 191 dated 20-7-1984, which shows the description of the goods, as indicated above. It is an admitted fact that the function of the machine is to plug the holes in the carburettor body with the help of lead shots. The contention of the responents is that the machine has other functions like trimming operation on the excess lead, checking to ensure that the plugging of the holes is airtight and the marking of number and identification code on the carburettor. The functions of the machine are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Classification of the impugned machine under Tariff Heading 84.45/48 is, therefore, ruled out. Even by taking all the functions of the machine into consideration, the classification for the purpose of customs duty will have to be determined keeping in view Section Note 3 in Section XVI and Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 84 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, according to which the principal function will be the determining factor. The principal function of this machine is to plug the holes of carburettor body. The machine does not fall under any of the Heading of Chapter 84 of the Tariff. Consequently, it will have to be classified under Heading 84.59 of the Tariff. As this machine is not designed for the production or a commo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 240, to support his argument that the burden of establishing classification is on the revenue. In our opinion, that burden was discharged by the Assistant Collector in his Order-in-original. In this order, we have discussed the reasons for our findings that the correct classification of the machine is Tariff Heading 84.59 (1).
9. In the light of the above discussions, we hold that the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) should be set aside, the Order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector should be restored and the appeal filed by the Collector is to be allowed. We order accordingly.
10. The appeal before us is disposed of in the above terms. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
