Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Collector Of Customs vs Kwality Biscuits Ltd. on 1 September, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(104)ELT797(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER
V.P. Gulati, Vice President
1. The issue in the appeal relates to the classification of the goods which has been held by the learned lower appellate authority to be under Tariff Heading 8504.40 which heading carries the description static convertors. The scope of the terms static convertors as set out in the HSN is as follows :-
(II) ELECTRICAL STATIC CONVERTERS The apparatus of this group are used to convert electrical energy in order to adapt it for further use. They incorporate converting elements (e.g., valves) of different types. They may also incorporate various auxiliary devices (e.g., transformers, induction coils, resistors, command regulators, etc.). Their operation is based on the principle that the converting elements act alternately as conductors and non-conductors.
The fact that these apparatus often incorporate auxiliary circuits to regulate the voltage of the emerging current does not affect their classification in this group, nor does the fact that they are sometimes referred to as voltage or current regulators.
This group includes :-
(A) Rectifiers by which alternating current (single or polyphase) is converted to direct current, generally accompanied by a voltage change.
(B) Inverters by which direct current is converted to alternating current.
(C) Alternating current converters and cycle converters by which alternat- ing current (single or polyphase) is converted to a different frequency or voltage.
(D) Direct current converters by which direct current is converted to a dif- ferent voltage.
2. The respondents held out their goods as invertors. On a perusal of the catalogue produced before us, we find that the goods have been described as Adjustable frequency motor controllers which are sinusoidal PKW voltage source invertors using the flux linkage control system to ensure smooth and quiet motor operation. The learned lower appellate authority while holding the goods to be falling under 8504.40 has held as under :-
"5. I have carefully considered the appeal. I have also perused the catalogue. I have also gone through the certificate issue by Central Power Research Institute, Bangalore. From the catalogue it is seen that the impugned goods are PKW voltage source invertors, using the flux linkage control system, to ensure smooth and quiet motor operation. The certificate given by the Central Power Research Institute, Bangalore also confirms that the goods are Variable Frequency Invertor. It is further stated that it cannot be used independently and hence not an electrical machine.
6. The classification by the Assistant Collector under 85.43, which is in fact, a residuary item, is therefore not correct. Accordingly the goods are classified under Heading 8504.40 read with Notification No. 59/87."
6. The learned JDR for the department has pleaded that the equipment in question is not a mere invertor but something more as it is functioning as a controller as set out in the catalogue. He has pleaded that the learned lower authority should have called-in a technical expert and should have addressed himself as to the use to which the invertors in question are put and also as to the functional role performed by the goods in question. He has pleaded that there is no discussion in the findings portion of the learned lower authority's order to hold as to how the motor controller could be considered as an invertor per se.
7. The learned Advocate for the respondents has no objection to the remand of the matter for reconsideration after taking into consideration the technical aspects of the goods as imported.
8. We have considered the pleas made by both sides. We find considerable force in the plea of the learned JDR that the learned lower authority should have addressed himself to the technical aspects of the goods involved and also as to functionally the uses to which the invertors are put and whether one of such uses is that of motor controllers. In a case where technical aspects are involved it is desirable that a technical expert's opinion is called for. This not having been done, we hold that the learned lower authority's order is not proper and legal. We, therefore, set aside the same and remand the matter to the learned lower appellate authority for de novo consideration and decision in the light of our observations as above.
9. The appeal is, therefore, allowed by remand.