1997(01)LCX0016

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

S/Shri S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)

PMT MACHINE TOOL AUTOMATICS LTD.

Versus

COLLR. OF CUS., BOMBAY

Final Order No. C/109/97-B2, dated 15-1-1997 in Appeal No. C/2054/90-B2

Advocated By : Shri T. Vishwanathan, Advocate, for the Appellant.

 Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)]. - The appellants imported Traub TX-8D CNC Control System designed for demonstration with a view to imparting training to their Worksmen regarding the operation of various types of machine tools. The appellants claimed it to be a simulator designed for demonstrational purposes particularly for meeting the educational needs of their workmen, sales/service personnel and other clients. They claimed classification of these items under CTH 90.23. The Asstt. Collector held that these could be used as CNC system also and therefore, it cannot be claimed that these are unsuitable for any other purpose in terms of CTH 90.23. Collector (Appeals) upheld the order. Hence this appeal.

2. Arguing for the appellants, ld. Advocate submits that the Asstt. Collector himself describes the difference between actual control panel and a simulator and admitted that certain parts essential in a control panel were absent in a simulator because there were not required for simulation purpose. Collector (Appeals) also held that presuming for the sake of argument that the goods imported are simulator, with some modification they are capable of being used, as control panel of actual CNC Machine or vice versa. Ld. Counsel submits that the goods have to be assessed in the form in which they are presented on importation and the argument that will some modifications these can be used as control panel is not sustainable.

3. Ld. DR submits that Heading 90.23 requires the goods not merely to be simulators but also such simulators as are not suitable for any other use. The goods can be used as CNC Control Panel with certain modifications and therefore Heading 85.37 cannot be excluded.

4. We have heard both sides. On going through the order of the Asstt. Collector, it is seen that he has himself admitted that the goods are also capable of producing simulating effect of normal operation of machine tools. He has also recorded the contention of the importer as to why the essential parts of CNC machine tools namely, Thyristor Controller, servomotor, position feedback units, Rotary convertor are not present on the simulator as these are not required since there is no actual operation taking place on a work piece or any movement of the tool bits. The relevant part of the para of Asstt. Controller’s order is reproduced below :

“The goods under import are undoubtedly for theoretical, practical and advanced training. However, it is also relevant to note that the subject Simulator may be through a proper interface can be connected to the machine tools and can be operated as a normal control panel of a CNC system as seen from the users Manual PG of TRAUB CNC Turning machine TND 560 with TX-8D control panel. And also in the normal CNC systems the operations to be carried on a work piece are programmed and these operations can be visualised on the monitor of the CNC Control panel and are controlled from the CNC Control Panel. In the case of simulator the function is similar to that of the CNC control panel wherein the operations that are to be carried on a work piece or programmed and controlled through the CNC control panel which is similar to the CNC control panel of normal CNC systems. In the case of Simulator the only difference is that there is no work piece on which the operations are carried out. The Simulator simulates these conditions through the additional hardware and software on the CNC control panel of the simulator as if the operations are carried on an actual work piece. This explains the contentions of the importer as to why the essential parts of the CNC machine tools namely Thyristor Controller, servomotor, position feedback units, Rotary convertor are not present on the simulator since these are not required as there is no actual operation taking place on a work piece or any movement of the tool bits. Thus the Simulator facilities hands on experience to the learners without any wastage of the work pieces and the associated costs of tool bits.

Hence this is more in the nature of control panel of a CNC system which is also capable of producing simulating effect of normal operation of machine tools".

It was contended before Collector (Appeals) that the Simulator does not have drives, motors, feedback elements etc. Explaining the difference between the simulator and CNC system, the appellants contended that even though the panel looks like CNC there are fundamental differences. There is a push button on the CNC as well as on the Simulator for swarf conveyor. Associated with this is a light emitting diode on the control panel. In case of the simulator the moment we press the push button it makes the light emitting diode glow indicating that the swarf conveyor is working though there is no swarf conveyor at all. The operator is taught that if he wants the swarf conveyor to start, he must press the push button and as soon as the motor of the swarf conveyor will start, the diode will glow. Even though to the trainee the panel looks the same, the working is totally different. In the Simulator the push button actuates the diode. In the CNC the push bottom acts as a signal to the CNC. The CNC sends a signal to the Programmable Logic Controller (PLC). The PLC operates a relay to start the motor and makes the diode glow. If we were to put the panel of the Simulator on the CNC, pushing the button will never start the swarf conveyor but the diode will glow. This is because there is no signal between the push button and CNC and PLC and relay. They therefore, negative the argument of the Asstt. Collector that by connecting the Simulator to the machine by interfacing as stated by the AC, one cannot make the machine work. We also note that Asstt. Collector himself admitted that Controller servomotor, position feedback units, Rotary convertor are not present in the simulator. We also note that the absence of these, because these are not required as there is no actual operation taking place on a work piece or any movement of the tool bits. This explains that even though the panel may look similar there are essential differences between the simulator and actual panel.

5. Mere fact that by adding some essential parts, it can be used as control panel is not relevant. Heading 90.23 states unsuitable for “other use”. We have to see whether the impugned goods as imported as such and presented for assessment are suitable for other use. Considering the differences between simulator and the control panel and admitted position that essential parts are not present, it has to be held that simulator in the form in which it was imported, was not suitable for other purposes.

6. In view of this, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

_______

Equivalent 1997 (92) ELT 226 (Tribunal)