2005(09)LCX0033

IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

S/Shri P .G. Chacko, Member (J) and T .K. Jayaraman, Member (T)

Jai Bharat Tanners

Versus

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Final Order No. 1291/2005, dated 21-9-2005 in Appeal No. C/64/99/MAS

Advocated By -

Shri M.S. Kumaraswamy, Consultant, for the Appellant.
Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, SDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per: T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. -

This is an appeal file against Order-in-Appeal No. 1272/98, dated 22-12-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai.
2. The appellants imported stainless steel band ironing band endless chrome plated-mirror finished and claimed classification as part of the rotary ironing and plating machine under the Customs Tariff heading 8453.90. How ever, the department classified the item under Heading 7314.19. The Commissioner (Appeals) relying on Note 1 of Section XVI held that classification indicated by the department namely 7314.11 specifically mentions endless belts it classification is in order. Note 1 of Section XVI indicates that Section does no cover endless belts of metal wire or strip (Section XV). The view of the Commissioner (Appeals) is that endless belts of metal wire or strip are taken out of the classification as parts of machinery. He has stated that since Note 1 is applicable one need not go into Note 2 of Section XVI. The appellants strongly challenge the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Shri M.S. Kumaraswamy, Id. Consultant appeared for the appellants and Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, Id. SDR for the Revenue.
4. Ld. Consultant urged the following points:
(i) There is a distinction between "endless belts of metal wires or strips" figuring under Sl. No. (ij) of Note 1 of Section XVI and the product imported by the appellants, namely, "Stainless steel band ironing band endless, chrome plated, mirror finished". The endless belts are used in machinery for transmission of power whereas the product imported by the appellants is wound on the drum of the ironing and plating machine for transferring the heat onto the surface of leather in order to obtain high gloss on leathers. This is the band which the appellants imported are not intended for transmission of power as its function of endless bands.
(ii) Once it is constituted that the endless bands imported by the appellants are distinct and different from endless belts, the exclusion under Note 1 to Section XVI at Sl. No. (ij) becomes inappropriate.
(iii) The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that anything other than in the form of wire is a strip and band is also a strip. This is opposed to the Technical definition of strips. Strip is defined as follows :-
STRIP: Hot rolled narrow strip of width Not exceeding 600 mm. width Rolled (square slightly round or Levelled) edge.
The endless band imported by the appellants is having a width of 1500 mm. This cannot be one commercially understandable as strip. Hence the Commissioner (Appeals) finding is wrong, he argued.
(iv) The impugned item is specifically meant for Rotary ironing and plating machine for leathers. Hence it is rightly classified under CSH 8453.90.
5. Ld. SDR reiterates the findings contained in the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal.
6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. It is true that Note 1 of Section XVI excludes endless belts of metal wires or strip. The impugned item is described as "stainless steel band ironing band endless, chrome plated, mirror finished". The appellants have made it clear that these items are specially made for the rotary ironing and plating machine for leather industry. They cannot be called as endless belts of metal wire or strip. Normally endless belts are used in the transmission of power. Since the items imported are specially designed for rotary ironing and plating machine Note 11(b) to Section XVI will be applicable. According to the above Note, parts suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine, should be classified as that the machine of that kind. We have gone through the records carefully. The description of the item given in the Bill of Entry are as follows :-
"STAINLESS STEEL BAND IRONING BAND ENDLESS, CHROME PLA-
TED, MIRROR FINISHED."
From the above description it is very clear that this item is an endless band made of steel. The Revenue has taken the view that these items are excluded by (ij) to Section XVI. Since, according to the Revenue, the impugned goods are excluded from the scope of Section XVI, even if they are essential parts of machinery coming under Chapter 84 they cannot be classified under Chapter 84. By virtue of Note 1 SI. No. (ij) to Section XVI, they would be classified otherwise in Section XV. In our view, this does not appear to be correct for the simple reason that the impugned goods are not endless belts of metal wire or strip. The description given in the Bill of Entry is that the items are endless band. There is always a subtle difference between a belt and the band. In our view the exclusion is for belts which are used for transmission of power. In the present case, the endless band wound actually form the surface area of cylindrical drum. In that sense this can- not be called as a belt. Therefore, the impugned goods are not excluded category of endless belts mentioned in the Note 1 Section XVI. From the write-up given by the appellants, it is very clear that the impugned goods are specially meant for the ironing and plating machine. They have stated that the mirror finished steel band is endless form which is just fixed on the drum of the machine without requiring any major or minor adjustment of the drum. This is something like the bottom portion of the domestic iron box. This portion transmits heat on to the surface of the leather to obtain high gloss leather. The appellants, in their letter, described the impugned goods as spare parts/accessories loosely. Once one understands the function of the ironing machine it is clear that the impugned goods are essential parts, without which the ironing of leather cannot be carried out. Once the goods are not 'excluded from the scope of Section XVI, Note 2 comes into play and we have to hold that these parts are used principally and solely for the machine which is classified under C5H 84.53. C5H 84.53 covers "machinery for preparing tanneries or working hides and skins or leather". Hence we have no hesitation that the impugned goods are to be used as parts of machinery falling under Heading 84.53. 84.53.90 covers the parts of the said machinery. Hence there is strong force in the contention of the ld. Consultant. In view of the above we allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
(Order pronounced in open Court on....)

Equivalent 2005 (189) ELT 0280 (Tri. - Chennai)