9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 1-3-2000 to the impugned imports. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants had imported three consignments of machines/parts claimed to constitute a second-hand plant to manufacture crowns & caps and had warehoused them under warehousing Bills of Entry No. 64328 dated 3-11-98, 64329 dated 13-11-1998 and 64990 dated 16-11-1998. The Bills of Entry had been assessed classifying the impugned goods under chapter sub-heading 8479.80 of the Customs Tariff Act extending the concessional effective rate of Customs Duty available to goods specified at Sl. No. 162 of Notification No. 23/98-Cus. The concessional rate of 20% ad valorem mentioned at the above Sl. No. was applicable to "Machinery for production of commodities" falling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 4. After considering the appeal, the lower appellate authority found that Chapter Heading 8479.89 covered machines and mechanical appliances other than those covered under Chapter Heading 8479.10 to 8479.82. Chapter Heading 8479 covered machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 84. She observed that the imported machines were :- (a) Slitting machines which cut the metal sheet (b) Metal Sheet Feeder (to feed sheets to printing/coating machine) (c) Forklift & pneumatic suckers (d) Coating/varnishing machine (e) Single colours printing press (f) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Note 3 and 4 to Section XVI and the corresponding HSN Notes had not been satisfied (to classify them as one machine). The Tribunal had decided that the two items had to be treated as distinct machines for tariff classification though they were responsible for the production of the final product in a continuous process of manufacture. 5. Before us the appellants reiterated the arguments that the impugned goods cleared under the three home consumption of Bills of Entry had to be classified as a single plant for manufacture of caps and crowns and that they were classifiable under Chapter Heading 8479.89. They were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 16/2000 as goods "Machinery for production of commodities" falling under CS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e classified as a single item and if so, what is its classification and whether the same is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 16/2000 Cus. The appellants had imported certain machinery along with small quantities of steel sheets and resin and warehoused them under three Bills of Entry describing them as 'conveyor machinery & parts' and 'printed blanking presses & spares'. At the time of warehousing these were assessed as claimed by the appellants under chapter sub-heading 8479.89 extending concessional rate available to goods at Sl. No. 162 of Notification No. 23/98-Cus. The appellants had claimed that they had imported a combination of machines consisting of various components interconnected by cable, piping etc. intended as a w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arently the set of machines which can produce 'caps and crowns' has to be classified under sub-heading 8479.89 and is eligible for the Notification benefit sought. The finding of the Commissioner on classification of the goods is therefore incorrect. However, in the instant case, there is no dispute that individually, each of the machines imported under the three Bills of Entry was classified under a particular heading of Chapter 84 with reference to its individual function or the particular industry in which it is used, correctly. The assessee had not followed the procedure prescribed under Public Notice No. 91/87 and the goods were presented as and when they were imported as 'conveyor machinery & parts' and 'printed blanking press & spare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss there was misdeclaration initially. In the instant case the goods had been wrongly described as 'conveyor machinery and parts' etc. whereas the home consumption Bills of Entry described the items correctly. Therefore the reassessment was not inconsistent with the decisions of the Tribunal cited by the appellants. The appellants had not followed the procedure prescribed in Public Notice No. 91/87 which could have enabled the assessing officer to classify the impugned goods differently as desired by the appellants at the time of warehousing. In the circumstances we find that the impugned order deserves to be sustained and dismiss the appeal accordingly.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in open Court on 19-2-2007) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
