1986(04)LCX0009
BEFORE THE CEGAT, SPECIAL BENCH B-2, NEW DELHI
Smt. S. Duggal, Member (J) and Shri D.C. Mandal, Member (T)
HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED,
Versus
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS
Order No. 262/86-B.2, dated 14-4-1986
REPRESENTED BY : Shri L.K. Mehra, for the Appellants.
Shri J. Gopinath, SDR, for the Respondents.
[Order per : D.C. Mandal, Member (T)]. - This is a revision application, originally filed before the Central Government, which, on transfer to this Tribunal, has been treated as an appeal.
2. The question for determination by us is whether the variable speed gear box imported by the appellants vide Madras Custom House Bill of Entry No. D-1442, dated 27-7-1978 was correctly assessed by the Custom House under Heading 84.63 of Customs Tariff or it was assessable under Tariff Head 84.45/48 as claimed by the appellants. By the impugned order, the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras held that it was correctly assessed, as the variable speed gear box is a specific item mentioned under Heading 84.63 and, therefore, the assessment made by the Custom House needed no revision.
5. In the revision application (now treated as appeal before us), the appellants have stated that the variable speed gear box imported by them is intended for controlling the main spindle of the machine. It is an indispensable functional part and is used in pre-determined and non-interchangeable location of the machine. It has got special shape and size suitable for the machine for which it is imported and it is not ordinarily used as a general purpose item. The item 84.63 calls for general purpose gear boxes and not for the one, imported for a specific machine. During hearing before us Shri L.K. Mehra, representing the appellants has reiterated the above arguments. He has also stated that according to Note 2(b) of the Section Notes in Section XVI, parts, if suitable for use solely or primarily with a particular kind of machine are to be classified with the machine of that kind. Hence, the imported variable speed gear box, which is a part of the Borematic machine and is specially designed for this machine should fall under Heading 84.45/48.
4. Shri Gopinath appearing for the respondent - Collector has argued that variable speed gear box is a specific item against Heading 84.63 of the Tariff. In view of the provisions in Note 2(a) of the Section Notes in Section XVI, these gear boxes are to be classified under Heading 84.63 and there is no scope for its assessment under Heading 84.45/48.
5. We have carefully considered the case records and the submissions of both sides. We find that Tariff Heading 84.63 specifically mentions, gears, gear boxes and variable speed gears for classification under this Heading. Section Note 2 of Section XVI of the Customs Tariff prescribes the rules for classification of parts of machines. It says that the parts of machines are to be classified according to the following rules :
“(a) Goods of a kind prescribed in any of the Headings of Chapter 84 and 85 (other than Heading Nos. 84.65 and 85.28) are in all cases to be classified in their respective Headings,
(b) other parts, if suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine or with a number of machines falling within the same Heading (including a machine falling within Heading No. 84.59 or electrical goods and apparatus falling within Heading No. 85.18/27 are to be classified with the machines of that kind."
The above rules of classification provide that the machine parts for which there is a specific Heading in Chapter 84 are to be classified under that Heading. Here, in the case before us, the appellants claim that the imported variable speed gear box is a machine part. It is also a fact that gear box and variable speed gear are specifically mentioned in the Tariff Head 84.63. According to the provision of Rule 2(a) quoted above, the imported goods should, therefore, be classified under Heading 84.63. If there was no specific Heading for variable speed gear box, then only it could be classified under Heading 84.45/48 applying the provision of Note 2(b) above. In the circumstances, the assessment made by the Custom House is correct and it does not call for any revision.
6.In the result, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
Equivalent 1986 (25) ELT 200 (Tribunal)