2012(06)LCX0242

IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

S/Shri P.K. Das, Member (J) and Mathew John, Member (T)

Auro Food Ltd.

Versus

Commissioner of Customs (Seaport) Chennai

Final Order No. 40083/2013, dated 21-3-2013 in Appeal No. C/398/2004

Advocated By -

Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri K.S.V.V. Prasad, Jt. Commissioner (AR),for the Respondent.

[Order per : P.K. Das, Member (J)]. -

The relevant facts of the case in brief as revealed from the records are that the appellant imported Debranner Milling Machine vide bill of Entry No. 698596, dated 6-2-2004 and duly assessed under Customs Tariff Heading No. 843780.10 without extending the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002 (SL. No. 267) as claimed by the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the assessment order and claimed classification under CTH 843710,00. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal.


2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the machine was meant for cleaning, sorting or grading the seed. He drew the attention of the Bench the catalogue, write-up of the said machine. He also submits that the assessment of the said machine under 843780.10 is contrary to HSN Explanatory Notes.


3. The learned AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the said machine is not merely for cleaning, sorting or grading of seed. He submits that the primary function of the machine is removing bran, the outer layer of the grain and therefore it cannot be classified under 8437 10 00.

4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, the relevant portion of the CTH 8437 is reproduced below :-

It is seen that the CTH 843710.00 is a specific Heading for "machines for cleaning, sorting or grading seed, grain or grading seed, grain or dried leguminous vegetables". The other machineries are covered under sub-heading No. 8437.80.

4.1 The learned counsel placed the catalogue of the said machine as under :-

"In the first stage the bran is removed by controlled abrasion and in the second stage friction polishes the grain and removes any adhering bran fragments.

Debranning removes surfaces contaminants such as bacteria, mould and agricultural chemicals.

The PeriTec process, incorporating the Satake VCW Debranning Machine, provides products of superior quality at higher extraction rates, with less milling equipment on all wheat varieties."

It is seen from' the above that in the first stage bran is removed by controlled abrasion. Incidentally, debranning removes surfaces contaminants such as bacteria, mould and agricultural chemicals. Thus it is clear that the main function of the machine is removing the bran, the outer layer of the grain and in that process it may be used for cleaning, sorting or grading seed.


4.2 Note (1) to HSN Classification of sub-heading 8437.10 covers ma-chines for cleaning, sorting or grading seed, grain or dried leguminous vegetables, etc., by winnowing, blowing, rotating winnowers and seed or grain selectors, special machines for selecting and grading seed for planting. Note (II) of the said Explanatory Notes to HSN for Heading No. 8437, indicates machinery used in milling industry. The "Bran cleaners" is specifically mentioned in Part(II)(c)(3). It is noted that milling machine for bran cleaner is outside the purview of subheading No. 843710.00.

4.3 It is contended by the learned Advocate that the appellant is a manufacturer of biscuits and other wheat products and uses this machine to facilitate carry debranning wheat. We have noticed from the catalogue placed by the learned Advocate that the Debranner milling machine is used for removing the bran by controlled abrasion and the process of removal of surface contaminants is incidental thereto.


5. We agree with the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the function of the Debranner milling machine is beyond the scope of CTH 8437 10 00 and therefore it would be rightly classifiable under CTH 8437 80 10 which specifically covers flour mill machineries. In view of that, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is rejected.

(Pronounced in open court on 21-3-2013)

Equivalent 2013 (296) ELT 0241 (Tri. - Chennai)