1997(09)LCX0005

IN THE CEGAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, MADRAS

S/Shri V.P. Gulati, Vice President and T.P. Nambiar, Member (J)

ADDISON & CO. LTD.

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI

Final Order No. 2529/97, dated 18-9-1997 in Appeal No. C/2202/92-B

Advocated By : None, for the Appellant.

Shri Rama Rao, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : T.P. Nambiar, Member (J)]. - The appeal is directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) in Order No. C3/288/91, dated 20-12-1991. In terms of that order, he confirmed the orders passed by the Asst. Collector in classifying the impugned goods under Heading 8207. In the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the above said decision stating that they are classifiable under 8466.93 as parts of Grinding Machines or in the alternative under Heading 68.04. The appellants in the appeal have contended that the goods imported are classifiable under Heading 8466.93. They stated that the machine is capable of making Thread Grinding on different types of tools and the same grounds urged before the Collector (Appeals) are taken before us.

2.  The learned JDR stated that the Collector (Appeals) has looked into the catalogue of the said goods and also has taken note of explanatory notes to HSN. In the light of the explanatory notes to HSN, it was pointed out by the JDR that the decision taken-up by the Collector is in accordance with law and he has also seen the samples. The JDR, therefore, pointed out the appeal may be dismissed.

3.  We have considered the submissions. In the impugned order, the learned Collector (Appeals) at page 2 & 3 held as follows :

“According to the machine’s catalogue the subject goods are mounted on a rotating shaft and whenever required they are pressed against the grinding wheel and by rotating both, the grinding wheel is ‘dressed’ according to the requirement. Further the ‘diamond rollers’ are changed according to the requirement of the form needed on the grinding wheel. According to technical books ‘dressing and truing’ of the grinding wheel is a basic requirement for the successful use of the grinding wheel. According to the catalogue produced the subject goods are used for ‘dressing’ the grinding wheel and as per explanatory notes (Page 1110) other interchangeable tools includes tools for dressing, planning, grooving,......truing’. As already observed these `diamond rollers’ are interchangeable among themselves and they are replaced according to the requirement of the form. Hence they should be considered as interchangeable tools and not as parts of machine tools, since the tools required for `dressing’ are specifically included under Heading 82.07.

The appellant’s alternate plea under Heading 68.04 is also not acceptable since the sample produced indicate that these are composite type of tool having abrasive layer over the steel form. According to explanatory notes Heading 82.07 includes tools with a base metal working part fitted or covered with abrasive material provided these tools have cutting teeth, flutes, grooves etc. which retain their identity and function even after the application of abrasive. The sample of the subject goods produced indicates that it is made of base metal with `grooves’ coated with abrasive material i.e. diamond. Hence the impugned goods are not classifiable under Heading 68.04 but under Heading 82.07 only."

4.  We have considered the submissions as well as the appeal grounds. We have also perused the finding of the learned Collector (Appeals). Since the Collector (Appeals) finding is based on the catalogue as well as the explanatory notes to HSN, we agree with the reasonings in the impugned order and no grounds are made out to interfere with the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

_______

Equivalent 1999 (110) ELT 761 (Tribunal)