1988(10)LCX0071

IN THE CEGAT, SPECIAL BENCH `B’, NEW DELHI

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

I.J. Rao, Member (T)

HMT LIMITED

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS

Order No. 439/1988-B2, dated 12-10-1988 in Appeal No. C/1119 of 1984 with COD/233/84-B2

Advocated By: Shri K.N. Srinivas Prasad, Asstt. General Manager, for the Appellant.

Shri A.S. Nair, SDR, for the Respondent

[Order per : I.J. Rao, Member (T)]. - We first heard both sides on the application for condonation of delay. We condoned the delay and heard the appeal.

2. Briefly the facts of the appeals are that the appellants imported Jig Boring Machine and cleared the same after payment of duty on 1-10-1980. Subsequently they made a refund claim on 12-2-1981 on the ground that the imported machine was STP-600 Coordinate Jig Boring Machine for use in the tool room and that as the item figures at Sl. No. 2 of the table annexed to the Notification No. 40/78-Cus., dated 1-3-1978 as amended, it was eligible for concessional rate of duty at 25%. The Assistant Collector of Customs in his order of 1-4-1981 rejected the claim on the ground that the machine imported was “Coordinate Boring and Milling Machine” while the Notification covers “Tool Room Coordinate Jig Boring Machine.”.....

3. The appellants filed an appeal. It was rejected on the ground that the machine tool imported is a multi-purpose machine tool which falls out side the scope of item 2 of the schedule attached to the Notification 40/78-Cus. Hence this appeal.

4. On behalf of the appellants Shri K.N. Srinivas Prasad submitted that the machine in question is “Coordinate Jig Boring Machine” as is apparent from the invoice as also the description furnished in the packing list. He also relied on a certificate dated 24-6-1981 issued by the Central Machine Tool Institute, Bangalore, a Government run unit. He argued that even though the machine in question can be put to milling operation the principal purpose is Jig Boring. He explained that the expression “Jig Boring Machine” automatically includes high precision machines to perform operations such as drilling roughing, boring, jig boring and milling. Therefore, according to the learned representative, the principal function is Jig Boring. He also invited our attention to Chapter Note-V to Chapter 84 (C.T.A) and submitted that according to this when a machine is used for more than one purpose its principal purpose should be considered as its sole purpose, for the purpose of classification.

5. Shri J.N. Nigam, the learned SDR opposed the arguments and submitted that as the imported machine is not exclusively a Jig Boring Machine, it cannot be extended the concession of the Notification.

6. We have considered the arguments. The application of chapter note for the interpretation of the notification, as proposed by the learned Representative of the appellant, is not correct. However, at the time of hearing we asked Shri Prasad, who is a B.E., & M. Tech. and a Sr. Officer of M/s. H.M.T., whether there are any Jig Boring Machines which are capable of Jig Boring only and nothing else. He replied that there is no such machine in the world. Later on further questioning it came out that a Jig Boring Machine has a very high precision and that a Boring Machine is different from this machine. There can be exclusive Boring Machines but not exclusive Jig Boring Machine. We further notice that the invoice described the goods as “coordinate Jig Boring and Milling Machine” and the literature shows that it is described as “tool room precision coordinate jig boring machine”. The learned representative of the appellants emphasised that the imported machine is not a production machine at all, its high precision making it necessary only for the tool room. We have also seen the certificate given by the Central Machine Tool Institute, Bangalore wherein they recorded that “we are convinced that the machine under reference is a special `tool room coordinate jig boring machine”.

7. These circumstances show that the claims of the appellants were valid. We hold that Serial No. 2 of the table contained in Notification No. 40/78 covers the imported machine. In this view we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Equivalent 1995 (80) ELT 865 (Tribunal)