Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.17 seconds)Collector Of Customs vs Enfield India Ltd. on 9 September, 1996
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant took great pains to satisfy
us that the Can Filler, Fruit Freeder and Ripple Machine were not
independent machines but accessories. However, in view of the findings of
the authorities based upon the working of the machines, we cannot accept
his submissions. We have also perused xerox copies of the literature
relating to the aforesaid machines and find that all such machines are
independent and not accessories. The mere fact that the so-called machines
can be connected with freezers would not change their character of being
independent machines. The aforesaid machines are intended only to give
better production of the ice cream. It cannot be said that but for those
machines freezer cannot be utilised for the purpose of the manufacture of
the ice cream. The purpose of the aforesaid machines is to facilitate in
filling the tubs with ice cream of one or two-three flavours add fruit
syrups, chocolate etc. to produce multi flavoured product. The reliance of
the learned counsel for the appellant on Collector of Customs v, Enfield
India Ltd., (1991) 51 ELT 172 SC is misplaced inasmuch as, the order of the
Tribunal was set aside, "in the facts and circumstances of the case;" The
argument in that case was that there was possibility of the goods falling
under different categories which is hot the position in the instant case.
Joy Ice Cream, Bombay vs Union Of India on 30 January, 1984
Similarly, the judgment in Joy ice Cream, Bombay v' Union of India, (1989)
39 ELT 521 Bombay does not in any way advance the case of the appellant. In
the case it was found that the freezer imported was meant to be utilised as
part of ice cream manufacturing plant which had no utility by itself. As
already noticed the alleged accessories being Can Filler, Fruit Feeder, and
Ripple Machine in the instant case, are not such machines which cannot be
utilised independently. The High Court in that case had accepted the plea
of the assessee on being satisfied that "It would, appear, therefore, that
the freezer is meant to be utilised as a part of an ice cream manufacturing
plant and has no utility by itself." The statutory authorities under the
Act and the Tribunal, were, therefore, justified: to hold that the Can
Filler, Fruit Feeder and Ripple Machine are independent machines and not
accessories as claimed by the appellant. There is no merit in this appeal
which is accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs.
1