Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Indian Organic Chemicals vs Collector Of Customs on 25 August, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(108)ELT172(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President
1. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellant has a factory at Manali for the manufacture of Man-made Fibre.
2. The Appellant imported a consignment of six Head Assemblies for Gas Chromatograph Model 5840A installed in the factory. On the arrival of the consignment by air, Bill of Entry No. AD 293, dated 7-2-1989 was filed in the Madras Airport Customs. The consignment was assessed by adopting classification under Heading/sub-heading 8473.30 and duty was duly paid on that basis and the consignment cleared.
3. An application dated 30-9-1989 for refund of excess duty was filed. It was explained that in Appellant's factory there was one Hewlett Packard Gas Chromatograph Model 5840A. The Thermal Print Head 5081-3017, which is a part of the said Chromatograph, became defective and hence had to be replaced. The replacement came by air to Madras Airport on 15-2-1989. The article was classified under Heading 8473.30. The above classification is incorrect. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Print Head Assembly imported is particularly designed for use with Hewlett Packard Gas Chromatograph. This instrument is specified under Heading 9027.20. Parts of Chromatograph do not fall under any specified heading or sub-heading of Chapter 90. By virtue of Chapter 90 Note 2(b), the parts of Chromatograph fall under 9027.20. Further, the part imported is neither an automatic data processing machine falling under Heading 84.71 nor a part falling under Heading 8473.00.
4. By virtue of S. No. 36 of Notification No. 105/89 Cus., dated 1-3-1989, the article in question is totally exempt from auxiliary duty. C.V. duty is leviable under Item 9027.00. However, the Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim. The Collector (Appeals) has also rejected the claim.
5. Their contention is that the Collector (Appeals) is in error in considering that the subject goods are parts of microprocessor/printer falling under 84.71 and not of Chromatograph falling under 9027.20.
6. Ld. DR drew attention towards the impugned Order and stated that the ld. Collector (Appeals) had perused the catalogue for 5840A Gas Chromatograph and observed that it is a digital processor based instrument operated from a Keyboard with 53 keys. The keyboard is part of the terminal module which also includes a chart paper drive and printing machanism, that is, a microprocessor based Chromotograph with a printer. The item under dispute namely 'print head', as the name suggests, is a part of the printer which is attached to the mocroprocessor unit of the instrument. Hence it is correctly classifiable as part of the printer rather than part of the Chromatograph.
7. We have considered the above submissions. We observe that the ld. Collector (Appeals) has passed the order after study of the catalogue. The appellants have filed a write-up which reads as follows :-
"THERMAL PRINT HEAD The print head is spare for Gas Chromatograph. A Gas Chromatograph is made up of three components, viz. Analysing Unit, Electronic Unit and Printer which give results in graphical form with necessary values (please see attached print out). The print head is a specified tailor-made component of Gas Chromatograph without which the printer unit cannot be used. Therefore this print head, dedicated solely and principally to Hewlett Packard Gas Chromatograph only. This print head cannot be used with any other Thermal Printer (like fax, etc.) ' of any other equipment."
8. They have filed photocopies of a couple of printed pages showing the Chromatograph and its description, but the photo of the item is hardly visible. They have also filed a copy of purchase order.
9. There is no doubt or dispute that Chromatograph is classifiable under Heading 9027.20 as mentioned by the appellants. The fact that they had ordered for a print head is also not in question. But their write-up cannot be a substitute for technical literature. It reflects their views, whereas what was required to be shown by them was some material which could substantiate the views expressed by them in the write-up and in their appeal memo. There can hardly be any doubt the print head being a spare, but that it is a tailor-made component of Gas Chromatograph and was dedicated solely and principally to such Chromatograph was required to be shown and proved. The appellants have not been able to do So. We are therefore constrained to reject their appeal as unsubstantiated as already announced in the open Court.