1987(08)LCX0098

BEFORE THE CEGAT, SPECIAL BENCH ‘B2’, NEW DELHI

S/Shri K.L. Rekhi, Member (T), Harish Chander, Member (J) and I.J. Rao, Member (T)

RANUTROL PVT. LTD.

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY

Order No. 1887/87-B2, dated 20-8-1987

Advocated By : Shri N.C. Sogani, Consultant, for the Appellants.

Shri J. Gopi Nath, S.D.R., for the Respondent.

[Order per : I.J. Rao, Member (T)]. - The appellants imported Calibration & Testing Equipment under Bill of Entry No. 2581/311. The goods were assessed to customs duty under Heading 9031.20. The importers claimed that the goods should be extended the benefit of Notification No. 118/86-Cus. on the ground that the imported goods were measuring and checking instruments.

2. The Asstt. Collector rejected the claim for the notification as on perusal of the invoice he found that the imported goods comprised complete equipment consisting of Gas Flow equipment. Leakage Test equipment and Calibration and Flow rate equipment. He held that basically the function of the equipment was to calibrate and to test and not to measure anything, according to the leaflet produced by the importers. The Asstt. Collector’s view was based on the ground that these equipment’s were parts of a complete system and could not work independently. In the opinion of the Asstt. Collector, even if the instruments could work individually the function of the same was only checking and not measuring. The Asstt. Collector therefore rejected the claim for the benefit of the Notification.

3. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) held that the imported goods were basically test equipment and their main function was not measuring. As Notification No. 118/86 applied only to measuring instruments the Collector rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal.

4. Shri N.C. Sogani, Ld. Consultant for the appellants submitted that the goods are intended for measuring and not merely for checking. He explained how each of the apparatus/equipment measures certain parameters. Shri Sogani submitted that before the Collector (Appeals) the appellants made a request, alternatively, for assessment under Heading 9026.80. He submitted that the goods merited classification under this heading. If this is granted the appellants would not press for the grant of the concessional notification.

5. Shri J. Gopi Nath, Ld. SDR opposing the arguments submitted that the appellants manufacture thermostats and gas cooks. The imported instruments were for testing these. In this connection, he drew our attention to the invoice wherein four items imported were listed. He submitted that each of 4 items constituted a Test Bench. Shri Gopi Nath further submitted that Heading 90.31 covered, apart from measuring or checking instruments, appliances and machines not specified or included elsewhere in that chapter (90). The imported goods being Test Benches, were specifically covered by Heading 9031.20. Shri Gopi Nath submitted that Test Benches are not measuring or checking instruments but were intended only for checking particular projects. Therefore, the imported goods should be classified under 9031.20, as done by the customs authorities.

6. Shri Gopi Nath invited our attention to the literature filed by the appellants before the lower authorities. He filed a copy of the same stating that the same was filed, before the lower authorities. (This was not contradicted by the appellants). These documents refer to 4 equipments referred to as Project Nos. 060501 to 060504. Each of the documents shows that the leak test equipment, flow rate equipment for the gas flow rate test equipment, leak test equipment, calibration and flow rate equipment for thermostat and leak test equipment for thermostat are covered by these 4 projects. In each case the testing equipment is detailed and items comprising the same are listed.

7. Shri Gopi Nath argued that in each case the apparatus contained in the work bench have been detailed and it can be seen that it consisted of different parts among which there are measuring/testing instruments. Therefore, each or any of the imported items cannot be considered as a measuring instrument. For the same reason the alternate claim for classification under Heading 9026.80 cannot be agreed to.

8. Shri Sogani, Ld. Consultant submitted that the word “apparatus” has a wide meaning. He argued that the scope of the heading for a Chapter 90 is very wide and covers machines, appliances and instruments with various functions. He reiterated that the imported goods were not test benches and merited classification under 9026.80. Alternatively, the Ld. Consultant claimed that the benefit of the notification would be available to the appellants since the instrument cannot do the testing without measuring.

9. We have considered the arguments of both sides. We have recorded earlier that the Ld. SDR filed what he has stated to be literature filed by the appellants before the lower authorities. We have very carefully examined this literature. In each case the function, test procedure and components of the equipment have been described in these papers. The flow rate test equipment comprised 10 units amongst which are Rotameter and Manometer. The leak test equipment comprised 7 items among which the electronic leak test device is there. In respect of Calibration and Flow rate equipment for Thermostat, the equipment comprised 13 items among which are Rotameters, Milliameter and Menometers. In Leak Test equipment there are 8 items which include Electronic Leak Test Device and Milliampere measuring machine. This shows that these measuring instruments only form part of the apparatus and are not the apparatus itself. From these facts, it is clear that the imported goods are test benches. Therefore, the lower authorities correctly classified them under Heading 9031.20. Heading 90.26 being only for instruments and apparatus for measuring/checking the Flow rate of liquid or gases, the imported goods cannot claim classification under that heading.

10. The Notification No. 118/86-Cus. is for measuring instruments and for instruments used both for purpose of measuring and checking. As the imported goods are complete test benches of which measuring/ checking instruments are parts, the benefit of Notification cannot be extended to the impugned goods.

11. We therefore dismiss the appeal.

_______

Equivalent 1987 (31) ELT 988 (Tribunal)