1990(05)LCX0079
BEFORE THE CEGAT, SPECIAL BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI
S/Shri Harish Chander, Member (J), P.C. Jain, Member (T) and Smt. V. Rajamanickam, Member (T)
GRANITE (INDIA)
Versus
COLLECTOR OF CUS. & C. EX.
Order No. 269/90-B2, dated 8-5-1990 in C/Appeal No. 2371/89-B2
Cases Quoted
RAJASTHAN UDYOG v. COLLECTOR - 1987(06)LCX0075 Eq 1987 (030) ELT 0961 (TRIBUNAL) [PARA 4]
EMCO TRANSFORMERS LTD. v. COLLECTOR - 1986(01)LCX0008 Eq 1986 (024) ELT 0084 (TRIBUNAL) [PARA 4]
COLLECTOR v. J.K. BATTERIES, BHOPAL - 1985 ECR 878 (CEGAT) [PARA 4]
INGERSOLL-RAND (INDIA) LTD. v. COLLECTOR - 1988(06)LCX0062 Eq 1989 (039) ELT 0454 (TRIBUNAL) [PARA 4]
COLLECTOR v. VESPA TOOLS & M/S PAN TRADERS - ORDER NO. 212 TO 215/89-B2,DATED 7-7-1989 (TRIBUNAL) [PARA 4]
PUREWALL & ASSOCIATES LTD. v. COLLECTOR - 1983(10)LCX0022 Eq 1984 (015) ELT 0490 (TRIBUNAL) [PARA 5]
SAURASHTRA CHEMICALS PORBANDER v. COLLECTOR - 1985(08)LCX0017 Eq 1986 (023) ELT 0283 (TRI.) [PARA 5]
ALLANA SONS PVT. LTD., BOMBAY v. COLLECTOR - 1987 (029) ELT 0119 (TRIBUNAL) [PARA 6]
Advocated By : Shri J. S. Agarwal, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri M. S. Arora, JDR, for the Respondents.
[Order per: Smt. V. Rajamanickam, Member (T)]. - The issue involved is the classification of ‘Gang Saw Blades’ imported by the appellants. The department was seeking to classify under Chapter heading 82.01/04 and the appellants sought to classify the same under heading 84.45/48.
2. Briefly, the appellants are engaged in cutting of Marble and Granite blocks of Gang Saw Machines which are installed in their factory and the blades are imported as replacements at regular intervals. On importation, the Assistant Collector had come to the conclusion that the Gang Saw Blades would be covered under heading 84.45/48. The basis for coming to this conclusion was that the blades are fitted in a frame which is attached to 4 pillars which in turn are fixed in the floor and would put the goods out of the purview of Chapter-82 and their use is in marble/granite cutting and they are correctly classifiable under heading 84.45/48 as Machine Tools for working metal or metal carbide stones etc. etc. This order of the Assistant Collector was, however, sought to be appealed against and under the directions of the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur, the Assistant Collector filed an application before the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his order set aside the impugned order of the Assistant Collector of Customs and directed that the classification should be under heading 82.01/04 against which the appellants have come in appeal.
3. In their appeal Memorandum, they have contended that the imported blades are to be used solely and principally in Gang Saw Machines and will not be covered by the description of “Hand Tools”. They state that the Heading 82.01/04 covers only hand saws. That when the blades in question cannot be operated upon manually and cannot be used without these being fitted in the Gang Saw Machine, they go out of the purview of Hand Tools, namely, Chapter 82.01/04 and that these are covered by heading 84.45/48 which includes parts for use solely as for working on stones/ceramics etc. That these blades are approximately 4 Meters in length and are heavy and cannot be held in the hand.
4. Shri J. S. Agarwal, the Ld. Advocate, reiterated the above submissions and further contended that the Assistant Collector in his Order-in-original had examined the case of the appellants at length and had passed an order in favour of the appellant and he also referred to the B.T.N. Notes covering Chapter 82 and reproduced the relevant portions as follows :-
“In general, the Chapter covers tools which can be used independently in the hand, whether or not they incorporate simple mechanisms or levers. Appliances are, however, generally classified in Chapter -84 if they are designed for fixing to a bench, a wall, etc. or if, by reason of their weight or size or the degree of force required for their use, they are fitted with base plates, stands, supporting frames, etc. for standing on the floor, bench etc.” and further pointed out that the blades are fitted in Gang Saw for Granite and Marble cutting. The Gang Saw is a structure based on 4 iron pillars which are fixed to the floor connected with each other in a rectangular form. That a rectangular mobile frame was fitted in it and the blades were fitted in the said rectangular frame of the Gang Saw, as such, it fitted into the description of appliances falling under Chapter heading 84.45/48. He also stated that in a similar import by another party M/s. Deejay Neelam Marble India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur, the very same goods Gang Saw Blades were classified under heading 84.45/48. He referred to the classification under heading 84.45/48 as referred to in 1987(06)LCX0075 Eq 1987 (030) ELT 0961 (Tri.) in the case of M/s. Rajasthan Udyog v. Collector of Customs, Bombay. The other citations made by the Ltd. Advocate were (i) 1986(01)LCX0008 Eq 1986 (024) ELT 0084 (Tri.) -in the case of M/s. EMCO Transformers Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, and stated that the Explanatory Notes to the CCCN though not incorporated into the C.T.A. yet possess persuasive value :-
“C.C.C.N. Explanatory Notes - Possessing persuasive value though not incorporated in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Explanatory Notes to the C.C.C.N. though not incorporated into the Customs Tariff Act, yet possess persuasive value unless the context of the C.T. A. indicates to the contrary.”
(ii) 1985 ECR 878 (CEGAT) - in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. M/s. J. K. Batteries, Bhopal;
“C.C.C.N. Explanatory Notes have a persuasive value in interpretation of Customs Tariff headings. While the explanatory notes to the CCCN have no statutory effect or binding force in so far as the interpretation of the entries in the CTA, 1975 is concerned, this Tribunal has, in the case of Kanwar Sewing Machine Co. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (1983 ECR 264-D), held that they are of considerable persuasive value in the matter of interpreting expressions occurring in the CTA, 1975 as well as in ascertaining the scope of headings therein.”
(iii) 1988(06)LCX0062 Eq 1989 (039) ELT 0454 (Tri.) - M/s. Ingersoll-Rand (India) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, whereby heading 84.45/48 relates to Machine Tools, (iv) Order No. 212 to 215/89-B2, dated 07-07-1989 of this Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. M/s. Vespa Tools & M/s. Pan Traders, the relevant portion from para No. 24 is reproduced as under :-
“Tools are items which have been distinctly placed under appropriate tariff entries in Chapter 82. Similarly parts of machinery have been distinctly shown under various sub-headings of appropriate headings in Chapters 84 and 85.”
He also referred to Section XVI, Chapter 84.45 which refers to “Machine Tools” and, therefore, pleaded that the blades imported should be classified under Chapter heading 84.45/48.
5. Arguing on the case for the department, Shri M.S. Arora, Ld. J.D.R. referred to the Section Note XVI, Note 1J (articles falling within Chapter 82 or 83 are excluded) and that this Section does not cover the articles falling under Chapter 82. He further stated that Chapter 82.01/04 specifically covered blades for machine saws and he referred to the rules of interpretation, Rule 3(a), namely, the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description and that the Explanatory Notes of the B.T.N. have persuasive value. He cited the following case laws :-
(i) 1985(08)LCX0017 Eq 1986 (023) ELT 0283 (Tri.) - M/s. Saurashtra Chemicals, Porbandar v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, the relevant portion of Head Note is reproduced as under :-
“Customs Tariff Act - Section Notes and Chapter Notes part of statutory tariff - Headings to be interpreted and applied in the light of Section Notes and Chapter Notes and bound by their overriding force - Section Notes and Chapter Notes in the Customs Tariff Act are a part of the statutory tariff and thus relevant in the matter of classification of goods under the Customs Tariff. The relevant headings in the tariff have to be interpreted and applied in the light of Section Notes and Chapter Notes which are statutory and binding like the headings themselves. These Section Notes and Chapter Notes sometimes expand and sometimes restrict the scope of certain headings. In other words, the scheme of the Customs Tariff Act is to determine the coverage of the respective headings in the light of the Section Notes and Chapter Notes. In this sense, the Section Notes and Chapter Notes have an over-riding force on the respective headings."
(ii) 1983(10)LCX0022 Eq 1984 (015) ELT 0490 (Tri.) - M/s. Purewall &Associates Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, whereby heading 82.05 is not confined to Hand Tools only.
6. Shri J. S. Agarwal, however, maintained that the assessment of the Gang Saw blades under heading 84.45/48 was in his favour and it was an established practice. He also referred to the citation in 1987 (029) ELT 0119 (Tri.) in the case of M/s. Allana Sons Pvt. Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, and further also stated that the Section Note XVI IJ, was in his favour and helps him as his goods are covered under Chapter 84 and excludes articles falling within Chapter 82 or 83.
7. We have considered the above contentions and it is seen that the goods imported are Gang Saw Blades. The Invoice specifies them as “multi blades Gang Saw for Marble” and similar is the descriptions in the packing list. Catalogue has also been produced with a description of the goods imported and these are found to be fixed on the Gang Saw machines for the purpose of cutting marble. The Collector (Appeals) has held the view that :-
“The entry under Heading 82.01/04 covers apart from hand tools saws (non-mechanical) and blades for hand or machine saws (including toothless saw blades). The steel and diamond blades imported by the appellant meant for the gang saw machine are therefore clearly covered under this entry. The entry under 82.01/04 is a consolidation of the entries 82.01 to 82.04 of the BTN. According to the general note under Chapter 82 of the BTN, the Chapter includes tools which apart from certain specified exception (e.g. blades for machine saws), are used in the hand (Heading 82.01 to 82.04). Thus it is clear that blades for machine saws are covered by this entry though as an exception. The entry under 82.02 under the BTN is the source for the particular entry under the Customs Tariff. From this entry under the BTN it is clear that Heading 82.02 covers blades for hand or machine saws including band saw and endless saw blades, (e.g., those for wood sawing machines), circular saw blades, straight saw blades, circular slitting and slotting saw blades for use on milling machines, straight toothless cutting discs (friction discs) for cutting through metal, chain saws for felling trees, sawing up tree trunks, etc. From this it is abundantly clear that blades for the gang saw machines would also be covered by Heading 82.01/04 of the Customs Tariff. The argument therefore that the machine saw used in Heading 82.01/04 is only a hand tool and not a machine saw for cutting granite and/or marble is irrelevant.”
The appellants have gone by the view that Chapter Heading 82.01/04 refers to “Hand Tools” only. A plain reading of Heading 82.01/04 shows that :-
“Hand tools (for example, spades, hoes, hewing tools, scythes and hay knives), of a kind used in agriculture, horticulture or forestry; saws (non-mechanical) and blades for hand or machine saws (including toothless saw blades).”
while Chapter Heading 84.45/48 covers the following :-
“Machine-tools for working metal or metal carbides, stone, ceramics.”
The issue is under what heading the Gang Saw Blades fall under. Chapter Heading 82.01/04 applies to Hand Tools and also other specified items. The specific entry under 82.01/04 for blades is as under :-
“Blades for hand or machine saws.”
Here, for a moment let us have a look at the Explanatory Notes of the BTN under Chapter 82, whereby it is stated that the Chapter includes tools which apart from certain specified exceptions (for example - blades for machines) are used in the hand (Heading 82.01 to Heading 82.04). This is the exact issue which covers the classification. The tariff heading is very specific to state that the blades in this case, the Gang saw blades for hand or machine saws. Blades for machine saws are specifically covered by Heading 82.01/04. This has already been pointed out by the Collector (Appeals). This will have preference to Heading 84.45/48 which is generally for machine tools for working metal or metal carbides, stones etc.- and as viewed by the department, the Rule 3(a) of the interpretative rules which provides preference to specific description over a general description, governs this classification. Therefore, the correct classification of the Gang Saw Blades would be under heading 82.01/04 and the reference to the case law by the Ld. Advocate in 1987(06)LCX0075 Eq 1987 (030) ELT 0961 (Tri.) about the classification of the Gang Saw Blades under heading 84.45/48 is only in relation to an observation for the purpose of applying the basic customs duty, because in that case the issue involved is the liability for the countervailing duty. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the Tribunal in that case had given a specific finding on the classification under the Customs Tariff. In effect, therefore, the appeal has no merits and is rejected.
Equivalent 1990 (50) ELT 536 (Tribunal)