Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Elgi Equipments Ltd. on 29 September, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(104)ELT796(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER
G.P. Gulati, Vice President
1. This appeal is filed by the department seeking the classification of the goods under T.H. 84.67 which carries the description "Tools for working in the hand, pneumatic or with self-contained non-electric motor". The ld. lower appellate authority has held the goods to be classifiable under 84.14 which carries the description "Air or Vacuum pumps, air or other gas compressors".
2. Explaining the functioning of the unit, the ld. JDR for the department that the compressor is used to supply the air compressor for greasing for inflating the tyres. He could not show on going by the Chapters notes or the description of the goods that the goods could be classifiable under 84.67. It is seen the scope of T.H. 84.67 rather limited as seen from the description of the goods. The equipment consists of a heavy duty compressor with the arrangement for taking the tube from the compressor end. Compressed air to be utilised for High Pressure greasing and for inflating the tyres.
3. The ld. lower authority has held the goods to be considered as compressor only. The whole set is mounted as one unit and the compressor forms one of the components in the Unit. The ld. lower authority has assessed the goods as a compressor holding that the principal function is that of the compressor. We observe that the principal function has to be read as the function which a particular unit is designed for and the function here is that of inflating the tyre or for high pressure greasing. In that view of the matter, the ld. lower authority was in error in having assessed the goods under T.H. 84.14. In our view the unit has to be assessed under the residual T.H. 84.79 which covers machinery falling under "individual functions". The respondents would not be prejudicial by assessment under this T.H. as the rate of duty under 84.67 and 84.14 is the same.
With our above observations, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.