1987(03)LCX0085
BEFORE THE CEGAT, SPECIAL BENCH ‘B2’, NEW DELHI
S/Shri S. Venkatesan, President, Harish Chander, Member (J) and I.J. Rao, Member (T)
SARADA INDUSTRIES
Versus
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
Order No. 352/87-B2, dated 5-3-1987 in Appeal No. CD(SB)(T) 135/81-B2
CASE CITED
SARADA INDUSTRIES CASE - JUDGMENT DATED 29-11-1979 OF MADRAS
HIGH COURT IN WRIT PETITIONS NOS. 2631, 2632 AND 3464 OF 1977........ [PARA 1]
Advocated By: None, for the Appellants.
Shri J. Gopinath, S.D.R., for the Respondent.
[Order per : S. Venkatesan, President]. - When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the appellants. In their letter dated 5-2-1987 they referred to the judgment dated 29-11-1979 of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in their own cases in Writ Petition Nos. 2631, 2632 and 3464 of 1977. They added that the Department had gone in appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court and the appeal was pending. They requested that the matter might be either decided on merit on the lines of the Madras High Court judgment or deferred till the Division Bench delivered its judgment.
2. This appeal pertains to 1981. We have no information as to when the Division Beach would dispose of the appeal. Accordingly, we proceeded to hear the appeal.
3. The goods in question are Thread Roll Dies made to order, for use in a Japanese Thread Rolling Machine in the factory of the appellants. The goods were assessed under Heading No. 82.05 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, on the ground that they were interchangeable hand tools. The appellants claimed reassessment under Heading No. 84.45/48 ibid., on the ground that the goods were non-interchangeable small tools. Their plea was rejected by the Assistant Collector as well as by the Appellate Collector.
4. Shri Gopinath, appearing for the Department, fairly agreed that the goods which were the subject matter of the writ petitions before the Madras High Court were also thread roll dies for their thread rolling machine. However those cases related to assessments made in terms of the First Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act, 1934. The Hon’ble Madras High Court had held that the goods were classifiable under Item No. 72(3) of the First Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act [otherwise referred to as the “Indian Customs Tariff (I.C.T.)] covering component parts of machinery, and not under Item 71(a) ibid., covering tools and parts thereof. Therefore that judgment would not in terms be applicable to the present case. However, Shri Gopinath fairly did not deny that the ratio of the above judgment would be applicable to the present case.
5. We find that although the court case was with reference to assessments made under the ICT, the decision taken therein is quite relevant to the present case. The Hon’ble Madras High Court, after a detailed discussion, had directed the classification of the goods under the main clause of Item 72(3) as “component parts of machinery.............namely.................such parts only as are essential for the working of the machine or apparatus and have been given for that purpose some special shape or quality which would not be essential for their use for any other purpose.............." This was in preference to Item 71(a) covering “tools and parts thereof”. Heading No. 84.45/48 of the Customs Tariff Schedule refers to machine tools and accessories and parts suitable for use solely or principally with those machine tools. As against this, Heading No. 82.05 covers interchangeable tools for hand tools, machine tools etc., that is, tools which can be used for more than one hand tool or machine tool. Heading No. 84.45/48 of the Customs Tariff Schedule is clearly analogous to Item No. 72(3) of the ICT, under which the Madras High Court had held the goods to be classifiable. We respectfully follow the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court and held that the goods should have been classified under Heading No. 84.45/48. We, therefore, allow the appeal and direct that consequential relief be granted.
______
Equivalent 1989 (41) ELT 560 (Tribunal)