Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Vardhman Spinning And General Mills vs Collector Of Customs on 5 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991(31)ECC272, 1991(53)ELT79(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Harish Chander, Member (J)
1. M/s. Vardhman Spinning & General Mills Ltd. has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. Shri M. Chandrasekheran, Ld. Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants and pleaded that the appellant had imported spring and claimed it as part of machinery specially designed to be fitted in "Mettler Hank to Cheese and Cone Winder." He pleaded that the original assessment under Heading 73.33/40 as an article of steel, and thereafter the appellants had lodged a refund claim and claimed re-assessment under Heading .84.38 as part of machinery specially designed to be fitted in mettler hank to cheese cone and winder. Shri Chandrasekheran, learned Advocate pleaded that in fact it is a part, but fairly stated that there are earlier judgments of the Tribunal in the case of Gordon JVoodroffe & Cq. v. Collector of Customs, Madras reported in 1987 (27) ELT 99 (Tri.) and also in the case of Krishan Flour Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1989 (41) ELT 576 (Tri.). Shri Chandrasekheran learned Advocate has stated that in view of the earlier judgments of the Tribunal, he leaves it to the discretion of the Bench.
2. Shri M.K. Sohal, learned JDR who was appeared on behalf of the respondent pleaded that the matter of fully covered by earlier judgments of this Tribunal, and the learned Advocate has not been able to distinguish the same from the earlier judgments of the Tribunal, and stated that the earlier judgments should be followed and the appeal may be dismissed.
3. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal had occasion to deal at length the same in the case of springs being article of general use in the case of Gordon Woodroffe & Co. v. CC, Madras reported in 1987 (27) ELT 99. Para No. 4 from the said judgment is reproduced below:
"We have given our very careful thought to this matter, because of this point raised by Shri Kunhikrishnan laying stress on the fact that Section Note l(f) of Section XV excludes from Chapter 73 itself machinery and appliances thereof, and that Note 2 has to be subject to Note 1. We, are of the view that this argument would have been very plausible, had there been no further exclusion note in the respective Section Notes, covering the Chapter of machinery also. Section XV, by specific mention, could be said to have not excluded parts of general use, as defined in Note 2, in case they were saved by Section Note 1 thereof, but for the exclusion clauses in related Chapter, that being Section Note l(g) to Section XVI in this case, though they would ordinarily fall under Section XV but for this exclusion. This intention as has been pointed out by the learned SDR is very expressly spelt out, by all Section notes which deal with highly specialised goods besides, machinery such as locomotives, vessels, aircrafts etc. Obviously by virtue of exclusion clause in each Section note, even though these items like springs, may be for specific purposes, they stand excluded from the respective headings, and we have to revert to Chapter 73, by virtue of Note 2. We, therefore, do not find any ground having been made out to accept the arguments of Shri Kunhikrishnan, and no infirmity in the orders passed by the authorities below, in regard to this item. No interference is called for, and the appeals are dismissed accordingly."
This judgment was followed by the Tribunal in the case of Krishan Flour Mills v. Collector of Customs reported in 1989 (41) ELT 576 (Tri.). Para Numbers 4,5 and 6 from the said judgment are reproduced below:
Para No. 4"Shri J. Gopinath, Ld. SDR, submitted that even if the imported goods are identifiable as exclusive parts of the Flour Mills, they are springs and Section Note l(g) to Section XVI read with Note 2 to Section XV renders the springs liable to be classification under Heading 73.33/40-CTA as parts of general use. In this context, the Ld. SDR referred to an Order of the Tribunal in Gordon Woodroffe & Co. v. Collector of Customs, Madras, 1987 (27) ELT 99 (Tri.). Ld. SDR submitted that Section notes are quite clear and that the ratio of the cited judgment was followed in a number of decisions of the Tribunal.Para No. 5
"We have considered the arguments of both sides. Note l(g) to Section XVI (Chapter 83) does not cover parts of general use as defined under Note 2 to Section XV. Note 2 to Section XV defines parts of general use, and specifically mentions springs.Para No. 6
"Taking into consideration this position and also following the ratio of the judgment cited by the Ld. SDR, we hold that even though the imported goods were identifiable as part of flour mill, they are springs and, therefore, were correctly classified under Heading 73.33/40."
4. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to differ from the earlier decisions of the Tribunal. Therefore, we follow the same and hold that the springs imported by the appellant are to be classified under Heading 73.33/40. We uphold the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) New Delhi. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.