Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Batliboi And Co. Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 2 September, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1987(13)ECR833(TRI.-DELHI), 1987(32)ELT118(TRI-DEL)
ORDER I.J. Rao, Member (T)
1. The appellants imported "Horizontal Boring and Milling Machines Model. Skada W200 GNR with accessories" under Bill of Entry No. 2270/17, dated 15th March, 1979. There is no dispute about the classification of the goods under Heading 84.45/48. The appellants claim the benefit of Notification No. 40/78-Cus. The Asstt. Collector refused to extend the same to the imported goods on the ground that this Notification at the relevant time covered only "Floor & Table type Horizontal Boring machine above 160 mm spindle dia" and not "Boring and Milling machine" which was imported. The Asstt. Collector held that the imported unit was basically "Milling and Boring Machine" which is different from a 'Boring Machine'.
2. The Appellate Collector upheld the order taking into consideration the description given in the catalogue. He took note of such description to the effect that the imported unit was primarily suitable for precision and high efficient milling, drilling and boring operations. Hence this appeal. We heard Shri S.M. Yusuf, Director of the Appellate Company. He argued that the imported unit being capable of boring, even though in addition to milling and drilling, should be considered to be a Boring machine and extended the benefit of the concessional notification. The learned Representative submitted that every Boring Machine can easily be used as Milling machine with the use of accessories. He pointed out that as can be seen from the catalogue, the imported unit is equipped with a Taper bore which is for milling cutter of stated size. He further submitted that the accepted nomenclature for the machine is Horizontal Boring and Milling (Horizontal Boring and Milling machine). Shri Yusuf pleaded that it is the spirit of the notification that should be considered and not merely the letter. He finally suggested that the matter may be referred to DGTD for technical opinion.
3. Shri J. Gopinath, learned SDR opposing the arguments submitted that the invoice, Bill of Entry and the catalogue show that the imported unit was a 'Horizontal, Boring and Milling machine'. He submitted that the imported unit cannot be considered to be a "Horizontal Boring machine" because it cannot do only boring but also Milling and Drilling and is designed accordingly. He further argued that a notification, especially exemption notification should be construed strictly.
4. We have considered the arguments of both sides. It is not in dispute that the imported unit is a "Horizontal Boring and Milling machine". The question before us is whether this can be considered as "Floor and Table type Horizontal Boring machine". As stated by the learned SDR himself there is no doubt that word 'floor' and 'table' are alternatives. The notification in question (Notification No. 40/78) extends concession to "Floor & Table type Horizontal Boring machine above 160 mm Spindle Dia". The question is whether imported unit is the one described in the notification. There is no difficulty about the Floor & Table type or about the Spindle diameter. The learned SDR himself accepted that the machine could be either a floor type or a table type. It is admitted by the appellants themselves that the imported machine does boring, milling and drilling. We agree with the submissions of Sh. 3. Gopinath that the notification should be construed strictly. This is the accepted legal position. It appears to us that there are machines which are for boring and there are machines which are for milling and there are machines which are for both. The present machine seems to fall in the 3rd category whereas the notification covers machines falling in the 1st category. It was correctly pointed out by Shri J. Gopinath that if a milling machine is imported without auxiliaries there will be no question at all of extending the benefit of notification. Similar is the case of a machine which is boring and milling machine. The imported machine is not a boring machine. We cannot stretch the meaning of the words used in the notification to cover machines which are not boring machines as such.
5. We do not accept the request of the appellants to refer to this matter to the DGTD for opinion. We have examined the matter on the basis of the literature including Catalogue, Bill of Entry, Invoice and also considered the various arguments putforth by both sides. In the result, we hold that the imported unit is not covered by the said notification 40/78. Accordingly we reject the appeal.