2001(12)LCX0019

IN THE CEGAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI

Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) and Shri S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)

SHRIRAM RAYON LTD.

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI

Order No. 3776/2001-WZB/C-I, dated 10-12-2001 in Appeal No. C/135/96-Mum.

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

Shri A.K. Jain, DR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - M/s. Shriram Rayon Ltd. had imported a consignment of goods declared as “one complete 600w ultrasonic sealing plus score cutting for industrial fabrics with two ultrasonic devices” claiming the assessment under Heading 8451.50 read with Notification 61/94-Cus. The functioning of the machine was explained and it was found to be capable of performing two functions viz. cutting as well as sealing and hence has ruled out the classification of the machine as cutting under Heading 84.51. The authorities below confirmed classification under Customs Heading 8479.89 and the benefit of notification was not extended because it was not claimed for the goods falling under the heading confirmed by the authorities below. In appeal before the Tribunal, it is argued that the benefit of Sr. No. 56 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 61/94 should be made available to the goods in question.

2. We have considered the submissions. Sr. No. 56 covers all goods falling under Heading 84.79 other than those falling under sub-heading Nos. 8479.89 and 8479.90 as well as machinery for production of a commodity. It is the contention of Shri Visvanathan, ld. Counsel for the appellant that as long as the importers are subject to satisfy the Bench that the goods imported was machinery for production of a commodity, it would be entitled to the benefit of notification in terms of second part of the entry of Sr. No. 56. We, however, are unable to agree with him in view of the exclusion, in the first part of the relevant entry, to goods falling under sub-heading 8479.89 under which the appellants have accepted the classification. In view of this specific exclusion of goods falling under 8479.89 we hold that the benefit of exemption under Notification 61/94 in terms of Sr. No. 56, thereof is not available to the goods in dispute. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

_______

Equivalent 2002 (144) ELT 0427 (Tri. - Mumbai)