TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants had stated before the Collector that they are one of the largest manufacturers of Dry Cell Batteries and in their manufacturing process a series of machines work in an integrated process as it is not a one machine process but is a giant complex employing large number of machines. All these machines are used for production of a single commodity i.e. Dry Battery Cells. Their Industrial licence and Import licence confirms that their end product is Dry Battery Cells. They claimed assessment of first three machines under sub- heading 8479.89 of CTA, 1975. They stated before the Collector that the Notification No. 153/86 nowhere mentions that each machine should produce a commodity and in modern industry a commodity cannot be produced from one single machine but a series of machines are required, hence the intention of the Government is not to restrict the benefit to a single machine and if it was not so, the word Machine would have been used in Notification and not Machinery and Heading 8479.89 would not have appeared in the Notification. The learned Collector held that all the four machineries imported are having their individual function and can separately be used for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch an interpretation is placed then almost all the factories would get exemption inasmuch as in huge plants, machineries are working jointly to produce a commodity and that is not the intention of the legislature to grant the exemption to entire plant. He submits that only a single machine which produces a commodity should be considered for the exemption. He submits that the Battery Can Trimming Machine has not been mentioned in the Sr. No. 25 of the Notification and if that machinery is taken away then a commodity cannot be produced by this three machines. These three machines by itself do not produce a commodity, unless the help of the other machines are taken into consideration. Therefore, even by applying the logic of the appellants, they do not have a case for grant of exemption. He submits that the Notification No. 40/78 also uses similar words and on interpretation in the case of Collector of Customs v. Fit Tight Nuts and Bolts Ltd. as reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 159, the Tribunal rejected the grant of benefit. He submits that even in the case of series of machines working conjointly such machines should produce a commodity for grant of an exemption. In the present case on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by Capping Machine where a metal cap is placed on the carbon rod for making contact in the equipment where the battery will be used. The last process is carried out by Storage for Ageing where the battery is kept for Ageing. At this stage the battery is complete in all respects. It is only waiting for final checking, leak proofing and wrapping before it is despatched to the market. Ageing is done to detect any inherent fault in the battery due to material or process which may result in fall of voltage or ampere in the battery. 6. As can be seen from the above processes, the second process, fourth process and tenth process alone are carried out by the machines is question. These three machines carry out processes in between, do not bring out a commodity into existence. Various other machines are required for manufacturing the final product. Therefore, even by the appellants own contention, these three machines do not produce the commodity and hence the rejection of the benefit of the Notification by the lower authorities is fully justified. 7. We notice that the Tribunal in the case of National Small Industries v. Collector of Customs as reported in 1988 (36) E.L.T. 367 has c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishes, trims, levels, polishes, smoothens, a material or a commodity or the workpiece subjected to its operation. If such is the case, the machine evidently does not produce a commodity but merely completes or finishes a commodity to bring it to a certain state. 7. The machine imported by National Small Industries, the appellants, produces a rigid board suitable for making cartons. The Assistant Collector says that the laminated sheets by itself cannot be considered a commodity, but besides this bare statement, he supports it by no argument or discussion. It is not unreasonable to say that a rigid board is a commodity and that the machine that produces it from non-rigid sheet and board has produced a commodity, even when the process of production is the simple one or gluing two or three materials together. The heading definition is vague and undefinitive and lends itself to two opposing interpretations. If votes were to be cast, I think that the motion the machine produces a commodity will receive 51% votes, while the opposing motion will receive 49%. 8. It is not illogical to hold that the machine produces a commodity of laminated products suitable for carton making and ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r rejecting the benefit claimed in this case. 10. The learned Counsel relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Collector of Customs v. Zipper (India) Products as reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 193, wherein several machines performing individual functions but ultimately producing a commodity was taken up for classification under sub-heading 8459 (2). We notice that the interpretation for classification stands on a different footing than the interpreting the words in an exemption Notification. The Tribunal noticed that the tariff subheading reads : machines and mechanical appliances designed for production of a commodity , which was subheading to the main Heading 84.59, whose description was `Machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions . It was noticed that each of the machinery was performing a particular function and it was also designed for the manufacture of polyster zip and also found that these machines fitted to the description of Heading 84.59, hence the claim for the classification was upheld. In the present case, the question of classification is not in issue, but only question of benefit of the Notification, which grants benefit to a machinery use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
