9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of continuous ice-cream freezer to additional duty (CV duty) under Tariff Item No. 29-A(1) of the CET. 2. Classification for the purpose of customs duty of Can filler, Fruit feeder, and Ripple machine. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Liability of Continuous Ice-Cream Freezer to Additional Duty (CV Duty): The primary issue was whether the continuous ice-cream freezer falls under Tariff Item 29-A(1) of the CET, making it liable to CV duty. The appellants argued that the freezer, which has manufacturing qualities, should not be classified under this item as it primarily involves cooling, unlike the illustrations (ice-makers, bottle coolers, display cabinets, and water coolers) which only have cooling qualities. The respondent countered that the term "such as" in the tariff item is illustrative, not exhaustive, and any refrigerating appliance sold as a ready-assembled unit falls under this item. The Tribunal referenced several legal precedents, including the Gujarat High Court's decision in M/s. Jalal Plastic Industries and the Allahabad High Court's decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kwality Restaurant, which supported the view that the term "such as" is illustrative. Additionally, the Tribunal cited the Privy Council's rulings in Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd. v. Ruttanji Ramji and others and Aniruddha Mitra v. Administrator General of Bengal, which emphasized that illustrations should not restrict the meaning of a section. The Tribunal concluded that the continuous ice-cream freezer, being a refrigerating appliance, falls under the main part of the sub-item and is liable to CV duty, despite its manufacturing qualities. 2. Classification for Customs Duty of Can Filler, Fruit Feeder, and Ripple Machine: The second issue concerned the classification of Can filler, Fruit feeder, and Ripple machine for customs duty. The appellants argued that these items should be classified under Heading 84.15, similar to the continuous ice-cream freezer, based on Note 3 under Section XVI and Rules 2(a), 2(b), and 3(b) of the Customs Tariff Act. The respondents argued that these items should be classified on their merits under specific tariff headings, as they are independent machines with individual functions. The Tribunal examined the relevant rules and notes, including Note 3 to Section XVI and Notes 2 and 5 in Chapter 84. The Tribunal noted that the Can filler, Fruit feeder, and Ripple machine are described as accessories in the manufacturer's leaflet and have independent functions. Therefore, they do not constitute a composite machine with the continuous ice-cream freezer. The Tribunal held that the classification of these items on merits under specific tariff headings was justified and legal. The appellants did not provide any alternative heading for classification nor disputed the assessment made on merits. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that: 1. The continuous ice-cream freezer is liable to CV duty under Tariff Item 29-A(1) of the CET. 2. The Can filler, Fruit feeder, and Ripple machine do not merit classification under Heading 84.15(1) and should be assessed on their merits under specific tariff headings.
|
