1996(07)LCX0023

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

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

INTERCRAFT SOUTH (EXPORTS) PVT. LTD.

Versus

COLLR. OF CUS., MADRAS

Final Order No. C/544/96-B2, dated 22-7-1996 in Appeal No. C/1942/86-B2

CASE CITED

Appletree Foundation Wear — Final Order No. C/352/95-B (Tribunal)                                  [Paras 8, 9]

Advocated By : Shri Virender Gupta, Assistant Manager, for the Appellant.

Shri K.K. Jha, SDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President]. - This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Madras dated 10-12-1985.

2. The ld. Representative of the appellants stated that they have imported VEIT Varioset Fusing Press and claimed assessment under Heading 84.40(1) but the department classified it under 84.59(1). Therefore, after clearance, they paid during under protest and filed a refund claim on the ground that this machine is a fusing press and not an ironing machine. Their contention was not accepted by the authorities. Hence, the appeal.

3. He would, in this connection draw attention to the catalogue which shows that it is a Flat Top Fusing Press for all fusing processes and for use in design and studios. The machine is equipped with variable controls for temperature from 65^oC to 230^oC, pressure from 0 to 6 bar with the result it is most versatile fusing machine in the world which is capable of fusing any two types of materials irrespective of their compositions. Further as per Notification No. 16/85-Cus., dated 1-2-1985, the duty on fusing press is only 35%.

4. The ld. SDR also drew attention to the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal and stated that the pamphlets produced before the authorities below showed that a new era in multipurpose ironing had dawned and the VEIT Varioset machine could meet all needs and suit any fashion and take care of fashion changes with more than 50 different pressing options. The new varioset ironing tables offered the possibility to adapt without any problems to models, output and materials. The new varioset was so flexible that by using interchangeable parts and moving a few screws and nuts it can be altered to suit an individual for multipurpose ironing station. It also indicates technical data. Therefore, the decision of the authorities below is correct.

He would further draw attention to the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Appletree Foundation Wear bearing Final Order No. C/352/95-B in which the machine imported was a hot press machine which was designed to transfer designs by heat process besides being designed for fusing of collars and cuffs in shirts or any other garments where fusing is required. The Tribunal had classified it under 84.59(1) [as against 84.40(1) claimed by the importers].

5. A look at the tariff as it stood during the relevant period shows :-

Heading 84.40 thus includes machinery for finishing textiles but not fusing or pressing, and therefore the Tribunal had not classified it under Heading No. 84.41 but under 84.59 which is a residuary entry.

6. We have considered the above submissions. We observe that a copy of the Bill of Entry produced before us describes the imported item as `VEIT Varioset Fusing Press’ and the copy of the invoice describes it as `VEIT Varioset Fusing Press’ whereas two different pamphlets or portions of catalogues have been filed before us, one of which describes Varioset Flat Top Fusing Press in Building Block and the other describes Varioset Ironing Tables; And we find that whereas the ld. Representative of the importers has cited correctly from the first pamphlet (or portion of catalogue) that is the one about the Flat Top Fusing Press; The ld. D.R. has correctly cited from the second pamphlet (or part of catalogue) which is for multipurpose ironing tables. The model number is not mentioned either in the copy of the Bill of Entry or the invoice or in the impugned orders.

The pamphlet produced by the importer shows diagram of various models set that is varioset standard/S/SB and the detailed specifications. The pamphlet relied upon by the department shows various diagrams but not model number. A reading of both the pamphlets taken together shows that there are VEIT Varioset multipurpose ironing tables as well as Varioset flat top fusing presses which may be similar but may not be exactly the same. Apparently in the case of former the main function is ironing and in the case of latter the main function is fusing. As per plain common sense, ironing and fusing are not exactly the same and processes although the latter may also involve ironing additionally.

7. Whether these two pamphlets are regarding different machines has not been clarified by the either sides. A copy of the Bill of Entry which has been filed is merely triplicate of prior bills of entry. Neither copies of the original/ duplicate bills of entry nor the copies of examination report have been filed. Therefore, it is not clear as to whether the items actually imported were merely multipurpose ironing table(s) or were fusing press(es). Further while the Assistant Collector’s order says that the appellants had stated that fusing is a process of integrating or permanently joining two different materials at a controlled temperature, pressure and time, but the literature submitted before him showed that the item imported was for multipurpose ironing. He, however, further goes on to say that VEIT leaflet described the Flat Top Fusing Press which is used for fusing different materials. It therefore, appears that both these pamphlets (or part of catalogue) which were produced before us were also produced before the Assistant Collector. But he was required to take note only of that pamphlet or portion of the catalogue which describes the goods as given in the Bill of Entry, and the invoice and compare it with that of the examination report to find out whether the goods imported were Flat Top Fusing Press or Ironing Machine. In other words, a verification of facts was required before determining the classification. The same however, does not appear to have been done.

8.In the case of the Tribunal’s Order No. C/352/95-B (in M/s. Appletree Foundation Wear), the machine was capable of two functions (1) fusing of garments and (2) transfer of design, printing and the issue was whether it was a printing machine or not and the Tribunal rightly decided that it was not printing machine.

9. In the case before us this is not the issue; and we have to decide whether it was an ironing machine or a fusing press. If it was an ironing machine as claimed by the department then it would fall under Heading 84.40 as this heading includes machinery for finishing of textile fabrics or made up articles of textile and ironing is a finishing process. On the other hand, if it was a fusing press, the main function of which was to fuse the materials, then it will be classifiable under Heading 84.59(1) [even if it additionally acted as a press] following the ratio of the Tribunal’s order in the case of Appletree Foundation Wear (supra). Since the bill of entry and the invoice described the item as fusing press and the petitioners had claimed it as a fusing press. It was incorrect on the part of the authorities below to look at that part of the catalogue or pamphlet which related to ironing table and ignore that part of the catalogue which dealt with the fusing press unless the examination report showed that the item was only an ironing table. But there is no such dispute and in the document filed before us and the submissions made before us the appellants have themselves stated it to be a fusing press; therefore it would be classifiable under Heading 84.59(1), hence there was no need to interfere with the classification adopted by the Customs.

10. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.

Equivalent 1996 (87) ELT 107 (Tribunal)