Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Appearance:

Shri MH Patil, Advocate for the appellant Shri K Puggal, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Date of hearing: 28/01/2016 Date of decision: 28/07/2016 ORDER NO: ____________________________ Per: C J Mathew:
The issue in dispute in these four appeals against common order no. 13-16/2004/NCH dated 7th February 2004 of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai  I is that of classification of press tool dies imported by the appellant, M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, under heading 82.05 or 846694 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and 84.45/48 of the erstwhile Customs Tariff and the applicability of countervailing duty (CVD) under Tariff Item 51A or Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. Departmental authorities favoured Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 82.05 and TI 51A. Relying almost entirely on the decision of the Tribunal in New Haven Steel Ball Corporation Ltd v. Collector of Customs [1991 (56) ELT 761 (Tribunal)] and Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1994 (74) ELT 312 (Tri.)], the impugned order confirmed the rejection of refund claim by the lower authority.

6. In the erstwhile tariff for 1985-86, interchangeable tools were classifiable under 82.05 while for the period from 1986-87 it is classifiable under 8207.30 whereas what earlier had been under 84.45/48 i.e. tools for use with machines in the erstwhile tariff of 1985-86 was, with effect from 1986-87, classifiable under heading 846694 when the old tariff was substituted.

7. The appellant is in the business of manufacturing vehicles known as jeeps and, the production being under a licenced design, involving supply of tools and dies by overseas entities. The manufacturer presses sheet metal parts into desired shapes for the body and parts of the jeep by fitting dies and tools to a machine known as press which exert appropriate pressure on the sheet metal. The die provides the shape while the press produces the required pressure. Thus with the same press machine and different tools/dies it is possible to form different shapes.

8. The classification under 82.05 decided upon by the assessing officer is:

:Interchangeable tools for hand tools, whether or not power-operated, or for machine-tools (for example, for pressing, stamping, punching, tapping, threading, drilling, boring, broaching, milling, turning or screw driving), including dies for drawing or extruding metal, and rock drilling or earth boring tools.

9. On the other hand, importer claims classification 84.45/48 described as:

parts and accessories suitable for use on solely or principally with the machines of heading nos. 84.56 to 84.65, including work or tool-holders, self-opening die-heads, dividing-heads and other special attachments for machine-tools; tool-holders for any type of tools for working in the hand and of 8466.94 being for machines of heading no. 84.62 or 63.

10. According to the appellant press tool dies are customized for manufacture of specific shape, that these support and clamp the primary material in position and also guide the tools which work on metals, and that each such press tool-die can work only in conjunction with a specified press. It is consequently their submission that the press tool/die is a part and parcel of a specific machine tool which is not interchangeable.

11. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that these are not interchangeable tools and are designed for a specific end-use and that the findings in the impugned order that press tool-dies were excluded from classification under Chapter 84 by placing reliance on note (1)(o) is erroneous. Learned Counsel produced catalogues of various tools as well as their description to evince the specialized nature of the tool/die under import. Reliance is placed on the Explanatory Notes to the erstwhile CCN as well as to the Explanatory Notes to the HSN. Reliance was also placed on decisions in Prince Metal Works v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay [1999 (113) ELT 463 (Tribunal), Jay Engineering Works Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise [1997 (94) ELT 527 (Tribunal), Pharmachine Mfg. Co. v. Collector of Central Excise [1999 (107) ELT 624 (Tribunal)], Sarda Industries v. Collector of Customs [1989 (41) ELT 560 (Tribunal), Commissioner of Central Excise v. Sundaram Fasteners Ltd [1999 (111) ELT 796 (Tribunal), Lohia Starlinger Ltd v. Collector of Customs [1992 (57) ELT 105 (Tribunal), Government Tool Room and Training Centre, Rajajinagar v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore [1982 (10) ELT 898 (Kar.), Delhi Kanodia Tin & Drum Factory v. Collector of Customs [1989 (43) ELT 531 (Tribunal)], Purewall & Associates Ltd. V. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1984 (15) ELT 490 (Tribunal), Spaco Carburettors (India) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1988 (34) ELT 3 (SC), ICI (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta [2002 (139) ELT 211 (Tri.-Del.) and Tata Engg. & Locomotives Co Ltd v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1997 (90) ELT 59 (Tribunal). We have examined some of the germane decisions below.