9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d during the period August 1986 to April 1988 raising to demands of duty on parts of drafting machines. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division IV, Pune classified parts of drafting machines under sub-heading 9033.00 of the Central Excise Tariff and confirmed the demand and subsequently show cause notices were issued demanding duty on parts of drafting machines from June 1988 to October 1991. Meanwhile the appellants had appealed against the classification order and the lower Appellate authority vide order dated 14-6-1990 set aside the order for re-determination of the issue of classification, exemption and valuation. In the de novo proceedings, the Assistant Collector held that protector head, scales, drawing board and pantograph were to be classified under Heading 90.17 and entitled to exemption under Notification No 71/86; he however, directed payment of duty on the stands and other small parts manufactured by the appellants and used in the drafting machines on their respective values. The Collector (Appeals) vide order dated 30-7-1993, upheld the order of the Assistant Collector that the products which go into the manufacture of the drawing and mathematical instrume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication grants benefit of concessional rate of duty only to drawing and mathematical instruments and does not include parts thereof. In the light of the above discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly confirm the same and reject the appeals. 6. The appellants contention that the duty demand relates to stands even when the drafting machine is cleared as a whole, cannot be accepted, being unsubstantiated. 7. [Assent per : S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President]. - With due respects to Hon'ble Member (Judicial), my views and orders in the matter are as follows. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants has stated that they are manufacturers of Drafting Machines and parts thereof. In their classification lists effective from 1-3-1986, the appellants had classified the aforesaid drafting machine under Chapter Heading 9017.00, claiming the effective rate of duty as Nil under the Notification No. 71/86, dated 10-2-1986 and/or Notification No. 164/86, dated 1-3-1986 which were approved finally by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector. 9. Further, in the aforesaid classification lists, the appellants had claimed the parts and accessories ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he drafting machine. 15. It was his submission that there is no provision under the law to treat any part of a machine separately when the machine is cleared as a whole and to recover duty on such part separately when the machine is exempted from payment of duty. He also contended that Collector (Appeals) has vaguely concluded in the impugned order that stand is not specifically mentioned in Tariff Heading 90.17 by name and therefore, it cannot be considered as entitled to exemption under Notification No. 71/86 as it extends only to drawing and mathematical instruments falling under Chapter Heading No. 90.17. 16. It was his submission that in the aforesaid Tariff Entry 90.17, the drafting machine which is an integral part of the machine is automatically included. Separating the stand from the machine when the machine as a whole is cleared and the recovery of duty on the stand denying the exemption under the aforesaid notifications is perverse. The appellants quote and rely upon the Pages No. 1485, 1486 and 1487 of the Harmonized Commodity and coding system wherein it is conspicuous that parts and accessories (which in the instant case include the stand, as aforesaid) ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the tariff heading in relation to the parts of instruments in the light of the Chapter Note 2, the learned Collector has directed the A.C. to conduct an exercise in relation to all the items that are found to be part of the instrument. Insofar as the question of exemption is concerned, the A.C. has been directed to determine the eligibility for Notification No. 71/86 after deciding the status of each item (whether instrument or part). He has also held that it is premature to go into valuation at this stage; Only if the goods are found to be dutiable, price becomes an issue. In the circumstances, the order of the Collector may be upheld. 20. Learned Counsel also drew attention to the Tariff Entry 9017.90 HSN to illustrate his point of view and also drew attention to the ISI Standard Specification for Drafting Machine (Second Reprint APRIL 1981) and in particular to the scope and general requirements under Headings 1.1, 2.1 (Drafting Unit), 2.2 (Drawing Board), 2.3 (Protractor Head), 2.4 (Scales) and 3 (Stand). 21. He also further stated that in fact, there are several judgments and orders which support his contention and he would like to draw attention in particular t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the above parameters were satisfied and as observed by the Collector, the A.C. has also not taken note of the provisions of Chapter Note 2. It was, however, necessary on the part of the A.C. to do so because of another reason as well namely, the applicability of Notification 71/86 inasmuch as the benefit of this notification would be available only subject to its classification in view of the fact that this notification covers inter alia Chapters 85 & 90 and various sub-headings specified therein and some of them but not all of them relate to parts and components. Further, of all the case law cited by the learned Counsel, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's judgment in the case of Nibs India v. U.O.I. reported in 1990 (49) E.L.T. 337 refers to Heading 90.17 and Notification 71/86 (as amended). But, the main point which emerges from this judgment is that you cannot treat the same item differently for classification purposes and differently for notification purposes when the notification specifically refers to headings and the tariff. This Tribunal has also had occasion to mention this very aspect and distinguished between notifications which could be read independently of the tari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
