1987(03)LCX0086

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

S/Shri I.J. Rao, Member (T) and M. Santhanam, Member (J)

GREATWAY (P) LTD.

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

Order No. 370/87-B2, dated 11-3-1987 in Appeal No. CD(SB)(T) A. No. 167/82-B2

Advocated By: Shri B.N. Sharma, Consultant, for the Appellants.

Shri J. Gopinath, S.D.R., for the Respondents.

[Order per : I.J. Rao, Member (T)]. – In this appeal, originally filed as a Revision Application before the Government of India and on statutory transfer an appeal before us now, the question is the classification of a “Spot Cleaning Gun”. The appellants claim that the correct classification of the goods is under sub-item (1) of Heading 84.21 of the Schedule to C.T. Act whereas the case of the department is that the correct classification is under sub-item (2) thereof.

2. Shri B.N. Sharma, the Ld. Consultant for the appellants argued that the Spot Removing Gun is meant only for removing spots on fabrics and cannot be used for any of the purposes under sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.21, that is to say, it cannot be used for spraying paint, varnish, oil, distemper or cement. He submitted that Note No. (5) to Chapter 84 of the Schedule lays down that “a machine which is used for more than one purpose is, for the purposes of classification, to be treated as if its principal purpose were its sole purpose”. He submitted that it has been accepted that principal purpose of the Gun is to remove spots from fabrics and therefore, it is correctly classifiable under sub-heading (1).

3. Shri J. Gopinath, the Ld. SDR submitted that as per the invoice, the goods were “New DIA Spot Removing Gun’’ and submitted that leaflet produced by the appellants is not relatable to the imported goods. He further submitted that there is no proof that this is the same leaflet which was shown to the Appellate Collector and commented upon by him in the impugned order. He also argued that the principal function is not covered by Chapter 84 of the Schedule to C.T. Act. According to the Note (5) thereto, the goods should be classified under Heading 84.59 thereof. Further, according to the Ld. SDR, the goods should be classified under sub-item (1) of Heading 84.59.

4. We have considered the arguments of both sides. We examined the Ld. SDR’s submissions that the leaflet filed before us now is not relatable to the one filed before the Appellate Collector, but on examination of the Appellate Collector’s order and of the copy of the leaflet filed before us, we do not agree with his arguments. We, therefore, proceed to decide the matter on the basis that the leaflet filed before us is the same as perused by the Ld. Appellate Collector in the impugned order.

5. We have examined the submissions of Shri J. Gopinath, Ld. SDR that the principal function of the imported goods is not covered by any of the headings under Chapter 84. There is no dispute that what is imported, is a “Spray Gun”, in view of the fact that the leaflet described it as such. We take note that the Assistant Collector described it as “Spot Cleaning Gun” but this seems to be only a difference in nomenclature. The pamphlet itself refers to the imported goods as “Spray Gun”. This uses a solvent and is to be used from a distance from 15 to 20 cm. away from the stain which is to be cleaned. The uses are described in the leaflet and these include removal of stains from fabrics. Therefore, we hold that this is a “Spray Gun” and is covered by the Heading 84.21. The impugned order also appears to have come to the same conclusion.

6. That takes us to the question of sub-heading under which imported goods should be classified. Sub-item (2) covers “Spray Guns and similar appliances for spraying paint, varnish, oil, distemper or cement; fire extinguisher (charged or not)”. The appellants’ argument is that the Spray Gun in question does not spray any of the article listed under sub-heading. But, on reading the heading, we fed that the correct interpretation is that all Spray Guns are covered by this sub-heading and also similar appliances for spraying the various things mentioned therein, are covered. The words “for spraying paint, varnish...............” qualify the words “Similar appliances” and not “Spray Gun”. This is because the word “Spray Gun” itself specifies a class of goods whereas the rest of the description is of general nature. In this view, we uphold the classification of the imported goods under sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.21.

7. As a result, we dismiss the appeal.

Equivalent 1989 (41) ELT 553 (Tribunal)