1998(06)LCX0045
IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
S/Shri Lajja Ram, Member (T) and S.S. Kang, Member (J)
MICRO TIPS PVT. LTD.
Versus
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY
Final Order No. 447/98-B2, dated 16-6-1998 in Appeal No. C/7/92-B2
CASE CITED
Metal Forgings Pvt. Ltd. v. U.O.I. — 1984(12)LCX0007 Eq 1985 (020) ELT 0280 (Del.) — Relied on [Para 14]
Advocated By :Shri J.P. Kaushik, Advocate with Ms. Ginny Bedi Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. - Appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal, dated 1-10-1991 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay.
2. The appellant made import of four automatic machine type PM - 20 for manufacture of Metallic Refill tips and claimed classification of the machine under 8479.89 of Customs Tariff and also claimed the benefit of Notification No. 59/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. The adjudicating authority classified the goods under 8457.30 of the Customs Tariff and claimed the benefit of notification. The appeal filed by the appellant was rejected by the impugned order.
2. Ld. Counsel submits that machine has only one definite function by different operations combined into one single machine for the purpose of ultimately manufacturing ball point refill tips. The brass slug undergo various processes such as first turning, second turning, collect closing, facing centering, capillary, hole control check, ball seat, ink channel, ball filling, balls lammering etc. before becoming a complete tip. All these processes were undertaken by the machine in question. The above processes does not contain the transfer of the product though there are multi stations which operate at the same time.
3. He also submits that the impugned order was passed contrary to the rules of classification and the authorities below had not considered the Section notes and Chapter notes in its entirety.
4. He submits that the machine in question have individual functions and is classifiable under Heading 8479of the tariff.
5. He also submitted that earlier the machine was classified under Tariff Heading 8479 by the Revenue. Therefore now for the same machine the revenue cannot classify the machine under other heading. He therefore prays that the appeal be allowed.
6. Shri A.K. Agrawal appeared for the Revenue and submits that the earlier assessment of Bill of Entry is no bar to take different view. He submits that the examination report of the machine shows that it is a PM 20 Point make Rotary Transfer machines. He submits that for actual manufacture of the tips several operations are needed to be carried out in Bras slugs before they are coverted into the tips proper. All these operations are carried out as are integrated basis as a Rotary transfer principle with 20 work stations. He therefore submits that the machine is rightly classified under Heading 8457 of the tariff.
7. Heard both sides.
8. In this case dispute is regarding classification of the automatic machine type PM 20. The machine is to be used for manufacturing tips of refills of ball point pens. From the catalogue of the machine it is clear that brass slugs (pre-termed blanks) has to undergo following operations on the machine :
1. Loading though vibrator
2. Collect closing
3. First turning
4. Second turning
5. Ejection
9. On ejection the slug is recovered and plating operation is carried out thereon.
10. Thereafter for further following processes were carried out on the machine.
6. Loading
7. Collect closing
8. First turning
9. Second turning
10. Facing
11. Centering
12. Capillary
13. Hole central check
14. Ball seat
15. Ink channel
16. Deburring
17. Ball filling
18. Ball hammering
19. Ball locking
11. The catalogue describes the machine as rotary transfer machine of point make series for machining of high precision small and micro parts. The mode number indicates, how many working positions are available on the machine. According to needs each position can be looked with an upper, lower or radial working station. The Tariff Heading 8457 of the tariff provides Machining centres, unit construction machine (single station) and multi station transfer machine for working metal.
12. The Tariff Heading 8479 of the tariff provides “Machines and Mechanical appliances having individual function, not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter”.
13. From the catalogue, we find that the machine consists of various work stations for carrying out the machine tooling. There are rough cone turning cone finishing, centering capillary, hole drilling, ball seat finishing, polishing, ink channel punching and deburring. Assembly is also done on various stations. After considering the operation undertaken on pre-termed blanks (brass slugs) on various stations of the machine, we find it is more appropriately classifiable under Heading 8457 of the tariff as held by the lower authorities then under the Heading 8479 of the tariff which is a residuary heading.
14. The Notification No. 59/87-Cus. at Entry No. 50 provides concession to the goods classifiable under Heading 8479 of the tariff. As we held that goods are not classifiable under Heading 8479 hence the goods are not entitled for the benefit of this notification.
15. The appellant also relied upon the classification of the goods in earlier assessment order. We find that it is a settled issue that estoppel and res judication are not applicable in tax matter. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Metal Forgings Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1985 (020) ELT 280 held as under :
16. There is no merit to the plea of estoppel raised by the parties in different contexts. There is no estoppel in a taxing statute. The principle of equitable estoppel which is a rule of equity cannot prevail against law. If an excise duty is not paid due to incorrect interpretation, still the Central Excise authorities are empowered to recover the duty due and payable by an assessee by virtue of Section 11A. If an assessee has wrongly classified his goods, then it cannot be taken as an estoppel for claiming a correct or revised classification. The principles of estoppel or res judicata are not applicable to tax matters. The view taken by an authority in respect of any assessment period will not be binding for subsequent periods.
In view of above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed.
_______
Equivalent 1998 (104) ELT 76 (Tribunal)