Indian Express (Madurai) Private Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs >1990(06)LCX0067

1990(06)LCX0067

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

Shri G.P. Agarwal, Member (J) and Smt. V. Rajamanickam, Member (T)

INDIAN EXPRESS (MADURAI) PRIVATE LTD.

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

Order No. 300/90-B2, dated 1-6-1990 in Appeal No. C/28/85-B2

Advocated By : Shri R.H. Subbaraya, Consultant, for the Appellants. Shri M.S. Arora, JDR, for the Respondents.

[Order per : G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)]. - Being dis-satisfied with the rejection of their refund claim, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

2. Factual backdrop : The appellants M/s. Indian Express (Madurai) Private Ltd., Madras imported Goss Headliner Press equipment and cleared the goods through the Cochine Customs House on payment of duty. Subsequently the appellants preferred a claim for refund of customs duty paid by them on the following grounds that -

(1) The spare parts for Goss headliner machine have been assessed to duty classifying them under Heading 84.62(2) CTA. According to Section XVI note 2 (b) these are parts of machine falling under Heading 84.35 CTA.

(2) The casting machine is a stereo casting machine and is correctly classifiable under Heading 84.35 as it is a machinery for use ancillary to printing and not under Heading 84.34 CTA.

(3) Mat dryer is classifiable under Heading 84.35 instead of 84.17(1) CTA, as specially made for drying stereo flongs.

(4) Mat Trimmer has been assessed under Heading 84.33 CTA instead of 84.35 CTA.

(5) Bundle Tier assessed under Heading 84.19 CTA should be reassessed under Heading 84.35 CTA.

3. The claim on all the aforesaid grounds was rejected by the Assistant Collector vide his Order-in-Original No. S.18/69/81 Ap(l) dated Nil. Being aggrieved the appellants chased the matter in appeal before the Collector (Appeals), Madras but without success. Hence the present appeal.

4. We have heard Shri R.H. Subbaraya, learned Consultant for the appellants and Shri M.S. Arora, learned JDR for the respondent.

5. At the outset it may be stated that classification of “Mat Dryers” was not challenged before the authorities below nor it was challenged before us.

6. As regards “Spare parts for Goss Headliner” it was contended by the learned Consultant that all these spare parts are Ball bearings and they should have been classified under the heading under which main machinery falls i.e. to say under Heading 84.35 CTA and not under Heading 84.62(2) as Ball bearings. It was also contended by the learned Consultant that an assessment at higher rate was resorted to as there were no separate values for the different items of spares which, according to him is wrong as “The Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963” are applicable to the spares which provides that when such spares are compulsorily supplied alongwith the main article of machinery and no separate charge is made for such supply, their price being included in the price of the article.

7. In reply it was contended by Shri M.S. Arora, learned JDR that both the authorities below rejected the said claim of the appellants as the appellants failed to substantiate their claim by producing packing list and proof of value of the spares and also it was not shown whether these parts were spares of Goss Headliner or whether they were spares of other machines included in the consignment imported.

8. We have considered the submissions. From the adjudication order we find that from the examination report appearing on the reverse of the bill of entry that the package No. 86 contained sleeves, Wormgers, Stereo flangls ball bearings, hydro check, shaft, axles and other spares, but the appellants did not produce the packing list of the spares nor they produced proof of value of the spares. Accordingly in the absence of packing list and other details regarding spares the same were classified under Heading 84.62(2) of the Customs Tariff Act. On appeal these findings were confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). At the time of hearing the learned Consultant also did not produce any packing list or the proof of value of these spares. In fact no evidence was produced. Under these circumstances we hold that the claim on this count was rightly rejected. As regards the contention of the learned Consultant that the Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963 were applicable and therefore, the assessable should have been made accordingly, we do not agree. On a plain reading of the said Rules it is clear that to claim the benefit of the Rules it is necessary that the proper officer is satisfied that in the ordinary course of trade such spare parts are compulsorily supplied alongwith the main article and no separate charge is made for such supply, their price being included in the price of the article, but as aforesaid no proof is forthcoming on the record to show that the spare parts in question were compulsorily supplied alongwith the Goss Headliner and further that no separate charge was made for such supply. Thus, we agree with both the authorities below that the claim of the appellants under the said Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963 cannot be entertained.

9. As regards Casting Machine it was the contention of the appellants that the correct classification ought to have been under Heading 84.35 CTA since Casting Machine is specially designed to suit the main printing machine namely Goss Headliner Press imported and therefore Casting Machine is a machine for uses ancillary to printing as well.

10. In reply Shri M.S. Arora, learned JDR while supporting the impugned orders maintained that it was correctly classified under Heading 84.34 CTA.

11. We have considered the submissions. Heading 84.34 covers machinery apparatus and accessories for type founding or type setting and machinery for preparing or working printing block’s, plates or cylinders. Therefore, we agree with the authorities below that the Casting Machine is very much under Heading 84.34. Needless to state that Heading 84.35 is a residue heading and applies only when classification under Heading 84.34 is ruled out.

12. As regards Mat Trimmer it was contended that it ought to have been classified under Heading 84.35 CTA and not under Heading 84.33 CTA since Mat Trimmer is an ancillary to the main printing machine. Elaborating further it was submitted that Mat Trimmer is used for trimming the edges of the Stereo Flong after a page impression is taken on it. Stereo Flong should withstand high pressure and temperature. In a nutshell the Mat Trimmer under question is not a paper cutting machine but it is specially designed for cutting stereo flongs.

13. In reply Shri M.S. Arora, learned JDR maintained that it was correctly classified under Heading 84.33 for the reasons mentioned by the authorities below.

14. We have considered the submissions and do not find any substance in the contention raised by the learned Consultant for the appellants. Heading 84.33 covers paper or paperboard cutting machines of all kinds other than machinery for making paper pulp or paper or paperboard. Stereo Flong are classifiable under Heading 48.01/21 of the Customs Tariff as paperboard. Under these circumstances the classification of Mat Trimmer under Heading 84.33 cannot be assailed.

15. As regards Bundle Tiers it was contended that the goods should have been classified under Heading 84.35 and not under Heading 84.19 CTA as done by the department because Bundle Tiers is an ancillary to the main printing machine imported. It was stressed that Bundle Tiers are machines which are used for bundling papers and tying them with twins and therefore it is not a packing or wrapping machine. We do not agree. Heading 84.19 of the Customs Tariff covers other packing or wrapping machinery. Thus, the scope of Heading 84.19 is wide enough to cover the bundle tiers which is in the nature of a wrapping machine. Hence we reject the contention raised by the learned Consultant.

16. In view of the above we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Equivalent 1990 (50) ELT 453 (Tribunal)