1999(02)LCX0254

  IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

S/Shri G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J) and Lajja Ram, Member (T)

NATIONAL PEN & PLASTIC INDUSTRIES

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY

Final Order No. 24/99-B2, dated 23-2-1999 in Appeal No. C/1769/94-B2

Advocated By : None , for the Appellants.

Shri S. Ramanathan, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. - M/s. National Pen & Plastic Industries nave filed the present appeal in which the matter relates to the classification of the imported machine described in the Bill of Entry as Linamatic Point making machines for making ball point tips. The importers claimed classification under sub-heading No. 8479.89 of the Customs Tariff which covered machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff. The Revenue did not agree with the classification as declared by the importers and classified the same under sub-heading No. 8457.30 as multi-station transfer machines for making metal. The Assistant Collector of Customs who adjudicated the matter observed that what had been imported were the two multi-station transfer machines manufactured, according to the requirement of the importer for the purpose of manufacturing ball point tips by performing various machining operations. He also observed that Heading No. 8479.89 was a residuary heading and as the goods were clearly classifiable under Heading No. 84.57, there could be no resort to the residuary entry. He also denied the benefit of Notification No. 59/87-Cus. as this notification did not cover the goods under Heading No. 84.53. On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay confirmed the view taken by the adjudicating authority and observed that the process involving working of metal was the principal function of the machine imported. He also referred to the production literature which had described the machine as inline transfer machine where a number of functions were to be performed by the machine.

2. The matter was fixed for hearing on 23-2-1999. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the appellants. Under their communication dated 11-11-1998 the appellants have prayed for decision on merits.

3. We have heard Shri S. Ramanathan, learned JDR and have gone through the facts on record. The goods imported had been described in the Bill of Entry as Linamatic Point making machine for making ball point tips. In the product literature it has been mentioned that the machine introduced a new system and a new way to produce Ball Point Tips by inline transfer with a combination of metal cutting and assembly. They had a number of working stations for machining and assembling.

4. The appellants had sought classification under sub-heading No. 8479.89 of the Customs Tariff. The Heading No. 84.79 covered machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 84 of the Tariff. Sub-heading No. 8479.89 is a residuary entry under the residuary Heading 84.79. The learned JDR had submitted that resort to the residuary heading could only be had when the goods were not clearly classifiable in any other specific heading. He had submitted that the goods were clearly classifiable under Heading No. 84.57 of the tariff which covered machining centres, unit construction machines (single station) and multi-station transfer machines, for working metal. The goods imported were multi-station transfer machines. In Heading No. 84.57, it has been explained that under the multi-station transfer machine the work piece is automatically transferred to different units. The ball point tips are made from the metal blanks which are processed by different unit heads., in the multi-station transfer machine and finally the ball point is obtained. Under the harmonised system of nomenclature, it has been explained that the multi-station transfer machine carry out different functions and the work piece is automatically transferred to different unit heads. We find that the functioning of the machines imported corresponds to the description as given in the tariff under sub-heading No. 8457.30.

5. Keeping in view the description of the goods and their functioning, we do not find any material on record to disturb the finding given by the adjudicating authority as well as the Collector of Customs (Appeals).

We do not find any merit in this appeal and same is rejected. Ordered accordingly.

_______

Equivalent 1999 (107) ELT 612  (Tribunal)

Equivalent 1999 (031) RLT 0707