1995(12)LCX0087

IN THE CEGAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH `B2’, NEW DELHI

S/Shri S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President and S.L. Peeran, Member (J)

UNIVERSAL INSTRUMENTS MFG. CO. PVT. LTD.

Versus

COLL. OF CUS., MADRAS

Order No. 426/95-B, dated 15-12-1995 in Appeal No. C/280/87-B2

Advocated By : S/Shri J.K. Wadhawan and Ravinder Wadhawan, Advocates, for the Appellant.

 Shri Joginder Singh, JCDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President]. - This is an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 60/86, dated 29-9-1986, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. The learned Counsel for the appellants stated that the appellants have imported `Turbine’ for demonstration purposes.

2. Since the item was designed for demonstration purpose in educational institution. It was their contention that it was required to be classified under Heading 90.21 of the Customs Tariff which reads as follows :-

“90.21 Instruments, apparatus or models, Free designed solely for demonstrational purposes (for example, in education or exhibition), unsuitable for other uses.”

3. It was his contention that since it was in the nature of model for educational purposes, therefore, it should be classified as such. The department, however, has classified it under Heading 84.07 and the Collector (Appeals) has also rejected their appeal. Hence, the petition.

4. It was also his contention that after importation they have actually been supplied to various educational institutions such as National Engineering College, Nalattinputhur.

5. He has submitted a supplier’s pamphlet which shows that these are specially developed for educational and training purposes.

6. In fact alongwith certain other items which are attached to it is the item used for the above purposes. Hence, the request.

7. The learned JCDR stated that the Turbines are not covered by Section XVIII. The Chapter 90 which includes only optical, photographic, Cinematographic, measuring, checking, precision, medical and surgical instruments and apparatus thereof. Therefore, only models of such items designed solely for educational or demonstration purpose and unsuitable for any other use would be covered by Heading 90.21 and not Turbines. The Turbines fall under Chapter 84 and not so.

8. He would also like to draw attention to the Chapter Notes of Section 84 (Sic) where Chapter Note 5 states that for the purpose of these notes, “machine” means any machine, apparatus or appliance of a kind falling within Section XVI.

9. Even parts of the goods falling under Chapter 84 are required to be classified in their respective headings. The item imported, however, is a fulfledged Turbinie which could be operationalised and used even otherwise commercially, and not merely for demonstration purpose or tranining. Hence the order of the lower authorities are required to be upheld.

10. We have considered the above submissions. We observe that the learned JCDR is correct. The Chapter 90 covers only the type of goods indicated in the headings and the notes. Heading 90.21 is obviously intended to cover models of the type of articles or goods covered by this Chapter and apparently Turbines are not one of such items. On the other hand, the turbines are classifiable under Chapter 84. The Turbines are obviously machines and described as such in the technical pamphlet submitted by the appellants themselves as machines and, therefore, fall under appropriate heading of Chapter 84.

11. The appellants have not made any alternative prayer for classifica tion in any other heading and, therefore, we are not required to look into the matter any further at this stage and it is sufficient for the purpose of this case to hold that the appellants claim for classification under Heading 90.21 was not correct.

12. The appeal is therefore, rejected.

_______

Equivalent 1996 (81) ELT 668 (Tribunal)