Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Bpl (India) Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 22 August, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994(74)ELT645(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)
1. This appeal arises out of Order-in-Appeal No. C/3/1930/82, dated 8-1-1985 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals) Madras.
2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants had imported electric motors and claimed their assessment under the then existing Tariff Heading 85.01(1) of CTA on the ground that motors they had imported were internally geared motors and since such motors are excluded under Heading 85.01(2) these would fall under the residuary Item No. 85.01(1) of the then existing CTA.
3. The Asstt. Collector held that internally geared can mean only such motors comprising of gears and motors housed in the same casing, not separable and manufactured as one integral unit and, therefore, classified these geared motors under 85.01(2) since the geared motor imported by the appellant are not considered by him as internally geared motors.
4. Collector (Appeals) rejected the contentions of the appellants and held that geared internally means gear fitted inside the motor housing and upheld the order of Asstt. Collector.
5. Ld. Consultant Shri N.C. Sogani for the appellant submitted before us that 'internally geared motors' is a motor which is connected with gear and it is not necessary that the gear and motors should be housed in the same casing. The expression 'internally geared motor' only means that the gearing with motor should be direct. He submitted that there cannot be any' internally geared motors' in which gear is used inside the motor. In their case the geared motor were internal in the sense that the motor and gear were joined by a metal stap and such a motor can be considered as internally geared motor. This, according to him, is what legislature intended as literature does not have any definition of internally geared motor.
6. Ld. SDR Shri K.K. Jha drew our attention to pages 13 to 17 of the paper book which contains argument notes at the time of personal hearing before Collector of Customs on 10-5-1984 and submitted that appellants stated that there is no definition of expression internally geared motor. The drawing submitted by them, Ld. DR submits, show motor separate from gear. The expression in the Tariff Heading 85.01(2) refers in plain words of 'internally geared motors' and type of motors where gear is part of the motor, not separable and manufactured as one integral unit can be considered as internally geared motor. The appellants, according to him, are wrong and therefore not entitled to have their goods assessed under Tariff Heading 85.01(1) of CTA.
7. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records of the case. For the sake of clarity we extract below the then existing Tariff Heading 85.01 :-
Electrical goods of the following description : generators, motors, converters (rotary or static) transformer, rectifiers and rectifying apparatus, inductors;
(1) No t elsewhere specified (2) Electric motors other than the following:
flame proof motors, variable speed commutator motors, internally geared motors, motors designed for use in circuits of 400 volts or above and other motors of rated output 1.5 kilowatts or above, (3) Transformers, other than flame proof whose rated input voltage is less than 400 volts, and inductors used in circuits of less than 400 volts.
8. It will be seen that for assessment under Heading 85.01(2) motors must be other than 'internally geared motors'. The appellants claim assessment under Heading 85.01(1) on the ground that motors imported by them are internally geared motors and therefore are excluded from 85.01(2) and should be assessed under Heading 85.01(1) as not elsewhere specified.
9. Internally geared motor can have only one meaning and that is a motor which is internally connected with gear and included in the same casing. We do not find much force in the contention of Ld. Consultant that by 'internally geared motor' legislature intended reference to a motor which is only connected with a gear. When the words of a statute are plain, that meaning has to be given to them. It is only when there is ambiguity that there is scope for applying principles of interpretation. There can be no equity or intendment in a taxing stature. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E., reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 37 (SC) observed in para 3 as :
"3. The provisions of the Tariff do not determine the relevant entity of the goods. They deal whether and under what entry, the identified entity attracts duty. The goods are to be identified and then to find the appropriate heading, sub-heading under which the identified goods/products would be classified. To find the appropriate classification description employed in the tariff nomenclature should be appreciated having regard to the terms of the headings read with the relevant provisions or statutory rules of interpretation put up thereon. For exigibility to excise duty the entity must be specified in positive terms under a particular tariff entry. In its absence it may be deducted from a proper construction of the tariff entry. There is neither intendment nor equity in a taxing statute. Nothing is implied. Neither can we insert nor anything can we delete but it should be interpreted and construed as per the words the legislature has chosen to employ in the Act or Rules. There is no room for assumption or presumptions. The object of the Parliament has to be gathered from the language used in the statute ... ".
10. Since in the case of appellants, motors and gears are separate, connected only by a metal stap, these cannot be considered as 'internally geared motors' and have been correctly held as classifiable under Tariff Item 85.01(2) of the then CTA. We accordingly reject the appeal and uphold the impugned order.