Sanden Vikas (I) Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs, Madras>1997(08)LCX0188

1997(08)LCX0188

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

S/Shri Lajja Ram, Member (T) and S.S. Kang, Member (J)

SANDEN VIKAS (I) LTD.

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS

Final Order Nos. C/2070-2071/97-B2, dated 28-8-1997 in Appeal Nos. C/270 & 271/91-B2

Cases Quoted

Collector v. Joseph Leslie Agencies Pvt. Ltd. — 1987(06)LCX0040 Eq 1987 (031) ELT 0203 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 5]

Collector v. Mahendra Engineering Works — 1993(02)LCX0024 Eq 1993 (067) ELT 0134 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 5]

Advocated By : Shri K. Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant.

Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. - These are two appeals filed by M/s. Sanden Vikas (India) Ltd. being aggrieved by two separate orders; one passed by the Collector of Customs, Madras and the other passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi. As in both the appeals, the classification of the goods imported, declared by the appellant as Aluminium extruded tubes and as classified by the Revenue as the part of air-conditioner, is involved, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. We have heard Shri K. Kumar, Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR for the Revenue. We have gone through the facts on record and have perused the relevant tariff entries. The appellants had declared the goods imported under the relevant Bill of Entry as aluminium extruded tubes classified under the Heading No. 7608.10 of the Tariff. The Revenue had classified the same under Heading No. 8415.90. The appellants had made alternative claim of classification under sub-heading No. 8419.90 and Heading No. 76.16 Customs Tariff.

3. The Additional Collector of Customs who had adjudicated the matter in Appeal No. C/270/91-B2 had seen a sample from the consignment. He found that the sample was a hollow product of rectangle cross-section. It has got a very large number of fins which appeared to be integrally attached. They has been specifically bent at an angle of almost 180^o, 30 times in the sample. The product had four angle voids along with a whole length. He had ruled out the classification of the goods in question under sub-heading No. 7608.10 in terms of the definition in Chapter 26 under Note 1(e).

4. Sub-heading No. 7608.10 of the Tariff cover tubes and bulbs of aluminium non-alloy. The tubes and bulbs had been defined in Note `e’ of the Chapter notes. After going through the definition of tubes as given in the Tariff and after noting the description of the goods as given by the adjudicating authority, we consider that the classification of the goods in question under sub-heading No. 7608.10 is ruled out.

5. Before us the appellants had claimed classification under sub-heading No. 8419.90. Sub-heading No. 8419.90 cover parts of other machinery, plant and equipment classifiable under Heading No. 84.19. It had been pleaded that the goods in question were parts of the condensor and in common parlance, the condensor was nothing but a heat exchanger. We find that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of air-conditioning units for the cars. The goods in question was admittedly for the condensor as per product literature on record. Sanden special condensors had developed for special car application where standard production models did not fit due to vehicle design. Heading No. 84.19 covers machinery, plant or other equipments for treatment of materials by a process involving a change of temperature. We consider that the goods in question for condensors for which the goods were meant, did not satisfy the criteria as given in Heading No. 84.19. Another alternative plea had been taken that the goods can be classified under Heading No. 76.16 which covered other articles of aluminium. Under Heading No. 76.16 such items as nails, staples, screws, nut, bolts, rivets etc. have been specifically mentioned. The goods imported were specifically designed for car air conditioning application and we do not consider that they fit in with the description as given under Heading No. 76.16. The Revenue had classified the goods in question under sub-heading No. 8415.90 which covers parts of the air conditioning machines. The goods in question were part of the condensors. In the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Joseph Leslie Agencies Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1987(06)LCX0040 Eq 1987 (031) ELT 0203 (Tribunal) = 1989 (012) ECR 0675 (Tribunal), the Tribunal had held that the parts which were specially designed for working in one apparatus could be classified only under the heading which covered that apparatus. It is seen that in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Mahendra Engineering Works, reported in 1993(02)LCX0024 Eq 1993 (067) ELT 0134 (Tribunal), the Tribunal had observed that part or parts were also the parts. Para 8 from that decision is extracted below :-

“8. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced on both sides and perused the records including citations. On going through the impugned orders in all these cases, we find that there is no dispute about the fact that these were used in the electric motors or in rotors or stators and in turn that was used as component part in the manufacture of power driven pumps. It is clear from the findings that these items are parts of the parts of power driven pumps and exemption was denied in the appeals filed by the parties on the ground that exemption was not applicable to the parts of the parts of power driven pumps. We are of the view that exemption cannot be denied on the ground that these were not parts of the power driven pumps. Furthermore, we do not find any distinction between parts and sub-parts in the aforesaid Notification. Under these circumstances, we do not find any justification in denying the benefit to the items in question since they are also parts of the power driven pumps. We are not convinced with the arguments advanced by the Departmental Representative that exemption is applicable to the parts of the pump portion and not to other parts. We also take note of observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hemraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Assistant Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat and Others [1978 (002) ELT (J 350)], which is reproduced below :-

“It is well established that in a taxing statute there is no room for any intendment but regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words. If the tax-payer is within the plain terms of an exemption he cannot be denied its benefit by calling in and any supposed intention of the exempting authority. In a Court of Law or Equality what the legislature intended to be done or not to be done can only be legitimately ascertained from that which it has chosen to enact either in express words or by reasonable or necessary implication.”

6. We find that in the invoice, the goods have been described under the description automotive air conditioning components. It had specified the part number. The goods have been imported from M/s. Sanden International Singapore Pvt. Ltd. who are the collaborators of the appellant company. From the product literature and the description on record, we observe that the goods imported were part of the air conditioning machines and were correctly classifiable under sub-heading No. 8415.90 of the Tariff.

7. Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the adjudicating authorities in both these appeals. As a result both these appeals are rejected.

Equivalent 1998 (98) ELT 696 (Tribunal)