TMI Blog1986 (2) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court for a direction upon the respondents to recall the said order to classify the machine under Heading No. 84.22 and refund the sum of Rs. 31,66,108.24 paise together with interest being the excess amount of customs duty realised by the customs authorities from the petitioner No.1. 2. The petitioner No. 1, as it appears, in the year 1954 installed at its Belur factory a hot rolling mill. The function of the mill is to roll aluminium alloy ingots into slabs/sheets. To facilitate handling of longer rolled slabs/sheets of lower thickness in coiled form the machine in question, namely, the hot blocker, was installed by the petitioner No. 1 in its factory. Since the only purpose for such installation is to facilitate handling, for the purpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncipal purpose were its sole purpose". Laying particular emphasis on the word "purpose" as used in clause 5 Mr. Gupta contended that the intention of the legislature was to treat the purpose behind the installation of a machine rather than its function as the sole criterion for its classification under one head or the other of the tariff schedule and that being so, the finding of the customs authorities that the function of the blocker being only to coil the rolled sheets, it was a machine for coiling and in the absence of any such classification in the tariff schedule, it should come under the residuary Item No. 84.59(1), is nothing but perverse and accordingly this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction should direct the recalling of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed item in the tariff schedule, it will be against the very principle of classification to deny it the parentage and consign it to an orphanage of the residuary clause. 8. In the instant case, the Appellate Tribunal has overruled the petitioners' claim for classification of the machine under Item No. 84.22 of the tariff schedule and has consigned it to residuary clause No. 84.59(1) since according to the Tribunal the subject, being a machine for coiling, cannot be classified under any other item of the tariff schedule. 9. In this connection Mr. Das, the learned Counsel appearing for the customs authorities, contended that the writ court, not being a court of appeal, has no jurisdiction to embark into an enquiry regarding the correctness ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the customs authorities which is favourable to Revenue, such findings of the authorities cannot be interferred with by the High Court under article 226 even though another view contrary to one adopted is in favour of the subject. 12. In the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court the powers of interference of a writ court in such matters are restricted only to cases where the authorities have adopted a construction which no reasonable person could adopt, i.e., if the construction is perverse. 13. The question is whether the order impugned in the instant case answers that description. Because, unless that is so, it will be out of the harm's way of this court exercising writ jurisdiction. 14. Coming now to the merits, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay still go on without the machine since the sheets could still be rolled in the existing rolling mills, hot and cold. The purpose of installation of the blocker is simply to facilitate handling of rolled aluminium sheets of unwieldy lengths and dimensions. To make his contention more lucid Mr. Gupta cited the instance of a washerman whose function is to wash the dirty linen and deliver them to the respective customers. He could, as contended by Mr. Gupta, do it even without their being folded. But he folds the linen only to facilitate their handling and for convenient delivery. It cannot be said that he could not carry on his business without folding the linen after washing them. 17. But let us now see what was the case of the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for handling, etc., so as to bring it under Item No. 84.22 as claimed by the petitioners. 20. On the own showing of the petitioner No. 1, the subject machine is a machine for coiling the rolled aluminium sheets. And this coiling is not to facilitate handling of the rolled sheets as sought to be established here before this court, but coiling is its main purpose besides also being its main function, since the commodity which the petitioner No. 1 produces and markets is "hot rolled coils" and manufacture of such coils is not possible without the blocker, that is the subject machine. 21. So, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the machine in question is a coiling machine and not a handling machine, far from being perverse, is the on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
