Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Cincinati Milacron Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs, Acc on 6 March, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002ECR383(TRI.-MUMBAI), 2002(144)ELT542(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. The appellants manufacture plastic injection moulding machines. They imported a machine called "VST Controls" and claimed classification under Heading 84.71 of the CETA. The Dy. Commissioner classified it under 85.37 which classification was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) resulting in the present appeal coming before us. Heading 85.37 at the material time read as under:
"85.37 Boards, panels consoles, desks, cabinets and other bases, equipped with two or more apparatus of Heading 85.35 or 85.36, for electric control or the distribution of electricity, including those incorporating instruments or apparatus of Chapter 90, and numerical control apparatus, other than switching apparatus of Heading 86.17."
2. As the wordings shows the heading would cover apparatus, etc., used for control or distribution of electricity. Any machine which does this function-will fall under this heading, no matter how sophisticated it is, but a machine which does not do this function as its primary aim would fall outside the purview of this classification. The literature of the contested goods was seen by both the officers. We have also seen the write-up. This is essentially a process control machine. The machine monitors dimensional requirements as also the quality of the moulded parts. The machine is capable of directing speed control revolution. It is essentially a hybrid machine consisting of both analogue and digital systems.
3. Although the Dy. Commissioner did not say and the Commissioner (Appeals) attributed to him the exclusion clause in the sub-notes to Heading of 84.71 as given in the HSN, the exclusion is for those machines operating on fixed programmes which programmes could not be modified by the user. On perusal of the notes, we find that the clause limits only the classification of the digital machines and not hybrid machines as is before us.
4. Before the Dy. Commissioner certain case law was cited which was not discussed in either of the orders except dismissing them as not rele-
vant. We are not pronouncing the applicability of these judgments but find that the classification adopted by the department was wrong and for that reason, we allow the appeal.
5. Appeal allowed.