Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Chief Engineer, Ground Water Dept vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai on 11 May, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No.C/355/03 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.54/2003/MCH dated 18/02/2003 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
======================================================
Chief Engineer, Ground Water Dept.,
Govt. of Rajasthan Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Respondent
Appearance:
Shri.V.M. Doiphode for appellant
Shri.A.K. Prasad, Jt. CDR, for respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. S. S. Kang, Vice President
Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing : 11/05/2011
Date of Decision : /05/2011
ORDER NO
Per: P.R.Chandrasekharan:
This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No.54/2003/MCH dated 18/02/2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. In the said order, the Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the classification of top drive heavy duty drilling Rig Truck mounted (1 No.) comprising of drill module, auxiliary air compressor, mandatory drilling accessories and spare parts for 2000 hours of operation under heading No.87.05 of the Customs tariff and also upheld the confirmation of differential duty demand of Rs.1,19,15,651/- made by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, vide order-in-original dated 24/07/2002.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are follows:-
2.1 The Chief Engineer, Ground Water Department, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as appellant) submitted a bill of entry No.12775 dated 25/07/1994 for clearance of top drive heavy duty drilling Rig Truck mounted (1 No.) comprising of drill module, auxiliary air compressor, mandatory drilling accessories and spare parts for 2000 hours of operation (hereinafter referred to as goods). The bill of entry was assessed under Customs tariff heading No.8430.41 and duty was levied @ 25% adv. plus additional duty 10% adv. under Notification No.61/94-Cus and 62/94-Cus. The spare parts were assessed under heading 8431.43 and duty was levied @ 25% advalorem + additional 25% advalorem. The said bill of entry was assessed on 01/08/94 and the importers paid the duty of Rs.87,52,156/- on 08/08/94. It is also on record that before assessment and clearance in question, the Customs Officers had examined the goods in detail and the documents were pre-audited and the officer-in-charge of the audit had also examined the goods in person and finally accepted the classification under Chapter sub-heading 8430.41. Subsequently, a less charge notice was issued to the appellant vide notice dated 20/01/95 wherein it was stated that the appellant had short paid Customs duty amounting to Rs.1,19,15,651/- on the ground that the goods under importation was classifiable under heading 8705.20 attracting a duty of 65% basic + 15% additional and the accessories are liable to duty under heading 87.08 attracting a duty of 65% advalorem + 20% additional. Thereafter nothing seems to have been happened for a period of 5 years. On 10/08/2000 the Customs department at Mumbai issued a letter to the appellant vide letter dated 10/08/2000 wherein they called for catalogue of the goods and also to indicate whether the imported machines are self-propelled wheeled machines in which (i) the chassis and the working machine are specially designed for each other and form an integral mechanical unit and (ii) the machine is not simply mounted on a automobile, but is completely integrated with a chassis that cannot be used for other purposes. The said letter was replied to by the appellant vide letter dated 14/09/2000 wherein they enclosed a leaflet of T-685 rotadrill heavy duty truck mounted drill rigs, which were imported by them. In the said letter they stated that the truck model used in the said drilling rig is Ford LTS 8000 and the drilling rig is fastened to the main frame of the truck chassis on which drill module is assembled by way of permanent fastening through welding and the said rig is hydraulically connected on the main frame through the outriggers for leveling of drill rig. It was further clarified by the appellant that the said imported drill rigs are self-propelled wheeled machines in which chassis platform is the working platform of the machine and the machine and trucks are specially designed for each other and form an integral mechanical cum hydraulical unit. They also stated that the machine as a whole can be used only for drilling or boreholes and the truck cannot be separated from the drill rig machine. Further, vide letter dated 07/03/2002, the appellants Advocate requested for a copy of the examination report recorded on the duplicate copy of the bill of entry at the time of importation so as to enable them to defend their case. It was also stated that the drill rig imported is still in operation in and around Jodhpur and the Customs authorities at Jodhpur could be permitted to obtain an expert technical opinion as to whether the chassis and drill rig are specially designed for each other and form an integral mechanical unit. It was also submitted in the said letter that the appellant would pay for the appropriate fees of the technical expert for giving the opinion after inspecting the drilling rig and also suggested that the department could depute the officers from Mumbai Customs for this purpose. The appellant filed a reply to the less charge memo vide letter dated 22/03/2002 narrating the sequence of events and also enclosed a copy of a certificate issued by the Prof. G. Agarwal, Head of the department of Mechanical Engineering, Malaviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur. The professor after examining the goods in question vide his certificate dated 16/03/2002 opined that the mobile drilling rig is having a sole function of drilling tube wells. The driving unit and the drilling rig are specially designed for each other and is a single integrated mechanical unit. The Professor further clarified that the drilling rig and the driving unit are not simply mounted on the automobile chassis but are completely integrated with the chassis and thus cannot be separated from each other and the whole unit cannot be used for any other purpose, such as transportation of persons or goods. The appellant also submitted a certificate from the manufacturer, who vide their certificate dated 18/03/2002, inter alia, certified as follows:-
This is to certify that:
1. We are a manufacturer of drilling rigs. We had received order No.T-1/93-94/ADP/SK/(E)/GWD/440 dated Jan 18, 1994 from The Chief Engineer, Ground Water Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jodhpur, for supply of one number T685W truck mounted drilling rig. The Drilling Rig Sl.No.J124-1512 was shipped vide our Invoice dated June,23, 1994 total value US $ 720471.
2. The drilling rig, as per specifications incorporated in the order, included the following:
- Top Drive Heavy Duty DTH drilling rig Model No.T685W (Truck mounted).
- Auxiliary air compressor complete with its power unit/cooler mounted on a trailor.
- Drilling accessories and spare parts.
3. That for assembling the drilling rig, we procured the carrier chassis model FORD LTS 8000 from the manufacturers M/s. Ford Motor Company.
4. That the various components of the drilling rig namely (a) Mast Assembly (b) Top Drive Head (c) Pull Down/Pullback (d) Air Compressor with power unit (e) Casing hoist (f) Jib Boom & winch (g) Sandline winch (h) Water & Foam Injection system (i) Hydraulic Breakout system (j) Line oiler (k) Operators platform (l) Blow down system etc. were integrally assembled on the carrier chassis.
5. The carrier chassis brought to our works had to be modified/altered to accommodate the mounting of all these sub assemblies. This process involved fabrication in addition to cutting/welding/fastening. After assembly, it becomes a mechanical and hydraulically operated drilling rig completely integrated with the chassis.
6. After assembly, the drilling rig cannot be separated from the carrier chassis. In fact, the sole purpose of the carrier chassis now, is to impart mobility to the drilling unit to enable it to be shifted from one drilling site to the other - wherever a tube well is required to be drilled. The carrier cannot be used for any other purpose such as transportation of persons & goods.
7. Thus, after assembly, the functional capacity and essential characteristics of the drilling rig are attributable to the drilling function. The carrier cannot be used independently as an automobile truck.
8. We further wish to point out that the whole machine is centrally controlled hydraulically from the operators station located at the left side of the mast in the rear of the chassis. During drilling, the carrier chassis is jacked off the ground by using the outrigger (leveling jacks) assemblies located on the front and rear of the unit.
2.2 The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Customs House after hearing the appellant on 08/03/2002 and after going through the technical literature and certificates produced by the appellant issued an order classifying the products under heading 87.05 on the following grounds:-
(i) the chassis in the subject case is not modified and no power take off devise was installed for transferring the power from the truck engine to the drilling rig and in the catalogue and technical specification it is clearly shown that the engine of the truck and engine used as a prime mover for driving compressor and hydraulic pumps (which supply power to the rig) are two separate and different engines.
(ii) as per the technical specification, the complete drill with main compressor and 5x6 mud pump unit is mounted on a heavy duty 6x4 wheel drive truck chassis suitable for off highway use.
Accordingly, he held that in the absence of mechanical integration between the rig and the automobile chassis, the goods in question merits classification under heading 87.05 and, accordingly, he confirmed the differential duty demand of Rs.1,19,15,651/-.
2.3. The appellant agitated the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) observed as follows:-
The appellants claim for classification of the subject machine under heading 84.30 under this category is mainly on the ground that in their case the carrier and rig are inseparably attached (the rig is mounted permanently on the carrier in a way that it cannot be easily dismantled and the carrier cannot be used for any other purpose but for transporting the drill). Thereafter, he examined the classification of the product in terms of HSN explanatory notes in respect of heading 84.30 wherein it was stated that the heading further includes self propelled machine in which the chassis and working machine are specially designed for each other and forms integral mechanical unit. In this case, the machinery is not simply mounted on an automobile chassis like the machine described in the first paragraph above but is completely integrated with the chassis that cannot be used for any other purpose and may incorporate the essential automobile features referred to above. 2.4. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) observed that in respect of product in question the chassis and working machine are not specially designed for each other; neither are they mechanically integrated with each other, though through extensive assembly work in the workshop and by structural modifications in the chassis, the drill has been mounted inseparably. The chassis and the working machine are attached permanently and interdependent but there is no mechanical integration and they cannot be treated as completely integrated within the scope of explanatory notes.
2.5. He further observed that the chassis or the carrier vehicle has retained its identity and if the chassis is dismounted from the working machine it can be used as self- propelled wheeled machine. He also held that mounting operations though extensive and structural have not brought in mechanical integration. Accordingly, he classified the product under tariff heading No. 87.05 and upheld the order passed by the lower authority and dismissed the appeal. The appellant is before us against the impugned order.
3. The appellants contention are as follows:-
3.1 The goods were examined by the Customs at the time of importation and clearance and after thorough examination, the Customs accepted the classification under heading 8430.31and allowed the clearances of the goods. Thereafter, on the base of CRA objection, the department had issued a less charge memo proposing to classify the product under heading 87.05 and demanding differential duty. No grounds have been adduced for the revised classification in the less charge memo.
3.2 The appellant had requested the department to come and gets the goods examined and tested by the technical experts, which the department has failed to do. Therefore, in spite of the appellants offer for detailed inspection and examination of the product, the department failed to avail of the opportunity.
3.3 The appellant had produced an experts opinion from the Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Malaviya Regional Engineering College, who has clearly and categorically stated that the mobile drilling rig as a whole, is wheeled one in which the chassis, the driving unit and the drilling rig are specially designed for each other and is an integrated mechanical unit and this cannot be separated from each other and the whole unit cannot be used for any other purpose, other than drilling of bore wells.
3.4 They have also produced a certificate from the manufacturer of the goods wherein they had clearly certified that the chassis, which was brought to their works had to be modified/altered to accommodate the mounting of the sub-assemblies namely, top drive heavy duty DTH drilling rig model No.T685W (truck mounted), auxiliary air compressor complete with its power unit/cooler mounted on a trailor, drilling accessories and spare parts. This process involved fabrication in addition to cutting, welding and fastening. After assembly, it becomes a mechanical and hydraulically operated drilling rig completely integrated with the chassis. They further certified that the sole purpose of the carrier chassis now is to impart mobility to the drilling unit so as to enable it to be shifted from one drilling site to the other wherever a tube well is required to be drilled. The carrier cannot be used for any other purpose such as transportation of persons and goods.
3.4 They also certified that the whole machine is centrally controlled hydraulically from the operators station located at the left side of the mast - in the rear of the chassis. During drilling, the carrier chassis is jacked off the ground by using the outrigger (leveling jacks) assemblies located on the front and rear of the unit. They have also certified that the cost of drilling rig supplied by them to the appellant is US $ 720471 and the drilling rig was mounted on a Ford model LTS 8000 carrier chassis, which had been purchased by them from M/s. Ford Motor Company for US $ 75,412.35. This certificate shows that the cost of drilling rig is almost 90% and the carrier chassis constitutes only about 10% of the total value.
In the light of these evidences the appellant submits that the product merit classification under heading 8430.31. The appellant would further submit that as per the HSN explanatory note heading 84.30 includes self - propelled machine in which one or more of the propelling or control elements referred to above are located in the cab of a machine mounted on a wheeled chassis, whether or not the whole can be driven on the road under its own power. The heading further includes self propelled wheeled machines in which the chassis and the working machine are specially designed for each other and form an integral mechanical unit. In this case, the machine is not simply mounted on an automobile chassis like the machines described in the first paragraph above, but is completely integrated with the chassis that cannot be used for other purposes and may incorporate the essential automobile features referred to above. Therefore, it is their contention that even as per the HSN explanatory notes, their product merit classification under heading 8430.31.
4. The appellant also placed reliance on the judgement of the Honble apex Court in the case of CCE, Baroda Vs. LMP Precision Engineering Co. Ltd., 2004 (174) ELT A-189. It is their contention that wherever there is evidence to support the finding that the goods in question were self -propelled machine, where chassis and the working machines had been designed for each other and where both the chassis and the machine formed an integral unit, the product would merit classification under heading No. 84.30. Only in respect of those goods where there is no such evidence, the question of classification under heading No. 8705.20 would arise. They also placed reliance on the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of CC & CE, Hyderabad Vs. KLR Industries Ltd., 2007 (209) ELT 33 (Tri-Bang) wherein this Tribunal held that the apex Courts decision can be applied only to the case where the facts are similar to that case. If it is shown that the chassis and the drilling rigs are integrally connected, then the apex Courts decision will not be applicable. On that basis, in the said case, the Tribunal after distinguishing the apex Courts decision in the LMP Precision Engineering Co. Ltd. Case, classified the product under heading No. 84.30 as against the department contention of classification under heading No. 87.05. The appellant further relied on the Tribunals decision in the case of Sparr Engineering Vs. CCE, Bangalore-II 2007 (207) ELT 522 (Tri-Bang) wherein it was held that in the case of drilling rigs mounted on motor vehicle chassis where the integration is complete, the product has to be classified under heading No. 84.30 and not under heading No. 87.05. In the said case, the Tribunal had further held that the onus of proving that the goods are classifiable under a particular heading/sub-heading is on the Revenue even if the assessee has not led in any evidence. The Tribunal relied upon the judgement in the case of Hindustan Ferodo Ltd., Vs. CCE, Bombay 1997 (89) ELT 16 (SC) and Singhla Sales Corporation Pvt Ltd., Vs. CC, Amritsar 2002 (141) ELT 806 (Tri-Del) while coming to the above conclusion.
5. Ld. JCDR on the other hand would contend as follows:-
5.1 In the instant case the demand has been raised within time and, therefore, even if there was any mistake in the original assessment, the same can be rectified and appropriate duty can be demanded. He relies on the HSN explanatory notes and the tariff description under sub-heading Nos. 84.30 and 87.05. Sub heading 8430.31, which is the classification claimed by the appellant, refers to self - propelled other boring or sinking machinery whereas heading No. 8705.20 refers to Mobile drilling derricks.
5.2 As per the HSN explanatory note in respect of heading No. 84.30, to be classified under this heading, the product should satisfy the criteria that the self propelled machine in which one or more of the propelling or control elements are located in the cab of a machine mounted on a wheeled chassis, whether or not the whole can be driven on the road by its own power. According to the JCDR, in the instant case there are two machines, one which provides power to truck chassis and the other which provides power to the drilling rig. Therefore, the chassis and the drilling rig are not integrally connected.
5.3 As per the manufacturers certificate, they have purchased a truck chassis separately and modified it and thereafter, mounted the drilling rig on the chassis by processes such as welding, fastening, etc. This shows that the chassis and working machine are not specially designed for each other. Therefore, the product cannot be classified under heading 84.30 as contended by the appellant.
5.4 The Ld. JCDR would further submit that under heading 87.05, there is a specific entry for mobile drilling derricks under sub-heading No. 8705.20 and according to the HSN explanatory note, the said heading specifically includes lorries fitted with a derrick assembly, winches and other appliances for drilling, etc. The product in question satisfies this description and, therefore, rightly merits classification under heading 8705.20.
6. The Ld. JCDR also relies on the judgement of the apex Court in the case of LMP Precision Engineerings case (referred to supra) wherein the apex Court held that water well drilling rigs mounted on motor vehicle chassis is specifically included in HSN Tariff sub-heading 8705.20 even if the explanatory notes to the section indicate to the contrary. It is his submission that an entry giving a specific description should be preferred over an entry giving a general description as per interpretative rules and, therefore, the product in question merits classification under 8707.20 as held by the lower adjudicating and appellate authorities. He also submits that the Supreme Court has, specifically in the aforesaid case, held that mobile oil rigs such as lorries fitted with a derrick assembly, winches and other appliances for drilling would be classifiable under heading 87.05. In the light of these submissions he contends that the classification proposed by the department is correct and, therefore, the duty demand has to be sustained.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and our findings are discussed below.
7.1 From the records it is seen that the goods under importation were examined not only by the examination staff but also by the audit staff, before accepting the classification under heading No 84.30 and allowing clearances thereafter. In spite of a specific request from the appellant, the department has not submitted a copy of the examination report of the examination/inspection conducted by the department at the time of clearance of the goods. The department has not produced a copy of the said examination report even before this Tribunal. Therefore, it is not known what was recorded in the examination report on the basis of the visual inspection/examination by the Customs authorities at the time of clearance. Since the classification under heading No. 84.30 has been accepted by the department, it is reasonable to presume that the goods on examination/inspection was found conforming to the requirements of the said heading.
7.2 It is also on record that the appellant offered to the department for the inspection of the goods and take technical opinion, if necessary. However, the department did not choose to do so. This again shows that the department was not keen to get the goods inspected/examined by technical experts and arrive at a considered decision while undertaking the classification of the product in question.
7.3 On the other hand, the appellant has obtained expert technical opinion from the Head of Mechanical Engineering Department of Malaviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur. They have also obtained a certificate from the manufacturer of the product regarding the nature of the product and its composition, etc. From these certificates, it is clear that the chassis, driving unit and drilling rig are specially designed for each other and they form an integrated mechanical unit. The drilling rig and driving unit are not simply mounted on the automobile chassis, but are completely integrated with the chassis and these cannot be separated out from each other and the whole unit cannot be used for any other purpose, such as transporting persons or goods. The manufacturer has further certified that the chassis brought to their works had to be modified/altered to accommodate the mounting of all these sub assemblies, which process involved fabrication in addition to cutting/welding/fastening and after assembly it became a mechanical and hydraulically operated drilling rig completely integrated with the chassis. Thus, it is seen that the chassis, which was bought from M/s. Ford Company has to be modified/altered for the purpose of mounting of drilling rigs and its fastening on the chassis. The manufacturer has further certified that the drilling rigs cannot be separated from the carrier chassis and the sole purpose of the carrier chassis now is to impart mobility to the drilling unit, that is, to enable it to be shifted from one drilling site to another. From the certificates given by the technical expert and the manufacturer, there is no dispute or doubt about the fact that the chassis and the drilling rigs are mechanically integrated and they cannot be separated and the whole unit is a self-propelled unit. It is further seen that the whole machine is centrally controlled hydraulically from the operators station located at the left side of the mast in the rear of the chassis, which makes it clear that it satisfies the requirements of HSN explanatory note relating to machines mounted on automobile chassis or lorries so as to qualify the classification under heading 84.30. Merely making arguments without inspecting the goods and without controverting the experts opinion submitted by the assessee does not in any way espouse the cause of the department. The officers of the department are not experts themselves to decide whether something is integrally connected or not; that has to be left to the wisdom of technical experts, who are competent to make such certification.
7.4 Both the appellant and the department place reliance on the HSN explanatory notes pertaining to heading No. 84.30 and the relevant portion is reproduced below:
(2) Machines mounted on automobile chassis or lorries:
Certain machines of this heading (e.g., pile drivers, oil well drilling machines) are often mounted on what is in fact an essentially complete automobile chassis or lorry in that it comprises at least the following mechanical features: propelling engine, gear box and controls for gear-changing, and steering and braking facilities. Such assemblies are classified in heading 87.05 as special purpose motor vehicles.
On the other hand, this heading includes self-propelled machines in which one or more of the propelling or control elements referred to above are located in the cab of a machine mounted on a wheeled chassis, whether or not the whole can be driven on the road under its own power.
The heading further includes self-propelled wheeled machines in which the chassis and the working machine are specially designed for each other and form an integral mechanical unit. In this case, the machine is not simply mounted on an automobile chassis like the machines described in the first paragraph above but is completely integrated with a chassis that can not be used for other purposes and may incorporate the essential automobile features referred to above.
7.5 While the department is relying on the first paragraph (underlined portion), the appellant is relying on the second paragraph (in italics) of the HSN notes detailed above. The departments contention is that the power source for the vehicle and the drilling rig are separate and the control mechanisms are not in the cab of the vehicle and hence, the product in question cannot be classified under heading No. 84.30 and merits classification under heading No. 87.05. The appellants contention is that the chassis and the working machine (drilling rig) are specially adapted and designed for each other and they form an integral mechanical unit, as per the manufacturers certificate and also as per the expert opinion of the Professor from the Malaviya Regional Engineering College. We also observe that in the HSN explanatory notes, there is no specification that the power source for the chassis and the machine should be the same. Further as per the manufacturers certificate dated 18-3-02 which is available on record (and which has not been rebutted by the department), it is clearly stated that the machine is centrally controlled hydraulically from the operators station located at the left side of the mast in the rear of the chassis. Therefore, we conclude that the appellant has led enough evidence to prove that they satisfy the conditions specified in the HSN explanatory notes with regard to the classification of the product under heading No. 84.30 of the Customs Tariff.
7.6 We also observe that the Revenue has not discharged the onus of proving that the goods are classifiable under a particular heading as has been held in a number of judicial pronouncements to cite a few (a) Hindusthan Ferodo Ltd. V CCE, Mumbai 1997 (89) ELT 16 (SC) and (b) Singhla Sales Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. V. CC, Amritsar -2002(141) ELT 806.
7.7 We also observe that the cost of the drilling rig forms almost 90% of the cost of the whole product whereas the cost of the automobile chassis forms only about 10% of the cost as evidenced by the manufacturers certificate. Though cost may not be an essential criterion in determining classification, it is certainly a relevant criterion. The essential nature of the product both in terms of function as also in terms of cost comes from the drilling rig. The automobile chassis is only for the easy transportation of the machine from place to place. Thus from a functional point of view also , the product merits classification under heading No. 84.30 rather than under heading No. 87.05.
8. The department has placed reliance on the judgement of the apex Court in the case of LMP Precision Engineering (supra). The facts of that case pertained to a situation where no evidence was produced to come to the conclusion that the chassis and working machine were designed for each other and formed an integral unit. In the absence of such evidence, the apex Court held that merely on the averments made by the parties, the Tribunal could not have come to the conclusion that the products satisfied the requirements. The same logic applies to the present case as well. The department is not prepared or has not produced a single evidence to rebut the contention based on the details given by the experts on the subject matter. They are merely referring to the explanatory notes without verifying and proving what are the facts applicable to the present case. It is for the department to establish the case of classification of product under any particular heading which it has miserably failed in the instant case. Whereas, the appellant has done their bit to support the classification claimed by them by obtaining experts certificate and also the manufacturers certificate in respect of product in question. In this view of the matter the judgement of this Tribunal in the case of KLR Industries Ltd., and Sparr Engineering (supra) becomes relevant and applicable. In these judgements, this Tribunal had held that the ratio of the honble apex Courts judgement would apply only to the facts of that case and where the facts are distinguishable, the same will not apply. The Tribunal further held that the onus of proving the goods are classifiable under a particular heading is on the Revenue even if the assessee has not led in any evidence.
9. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the expert opinion and the manufacturers certificate submitted by the appellants in the instant case and also taking into account the ratio of the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the both the sides, we are of the view that the classification of the impugned goods under heading No. 84.30 of the Customs Tariff has to be sustained and the claim of the Revenue for classifying the product under heading No. 87.05 of the said Tariff and the consequential demand of duty has to be negated. Accordingly, we allow the appeal.
(Pronounced in Court on .) (S.S. Kang) Vice President (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) pj 1 2