1999 (4) TMI 80 - SC - Customs

Whether, Can Filler, Fruit Feeder and Ripple Machine are accessories to the continuance icecream freezer or are independent machines covered by Chapter 84.19 and 84.30(1)? Held that - Persuing 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 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 icecream of one or two-three flavours add fruit syrups, chocolate etc. to produce multi flavoured product. Thus 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. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of Can Filler, Fruit Feeder, and Ripple Machine as accessories or independent machines under Chapter 84.19 and 84.30(1).

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the classification of Can Filler, Fruit Feeder, and Ripple Machine in relation to a continuous ice cream freezer under Chapter 84.19 and 84.30(1) of the Customs Tariff Act. The appellant imported these machines along with spare parts for making ice cream, claiming that they are accessories to the ice cream freezer and not independently functioning machines. The main contention was whether these machines should be classified under Heading 84.15(1) or separately. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) initially held that the items did not fall under Heading 84.15(1) and dismissed the appeals, leading the appellant to challenge this decision.

The appellant argued that the imported machines were specifically designed to work in conjunction with the ice cream freezer and could not function independently. They claimed that as refrigerating machinery, the machines were not dutiable and were not liable for countervailing duty under the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant sought re-assessment under Heading 84.15(1) but later suggested classification under different headings if not possible under the initial one. The authorities examined xerox copies of the literature provided by the appellant and concluded that the Can Filler, Fruit Feeder, and Ripple Machine were independent units requiring separate classification under Heading 84.30(1) and 84.19 respectively, with applicable duties.

After reviewing the literature and submissions, the court found that the Can Filler, Fruit Feeder, and Ripple Machine were indeed independent machines and not mere accessories to the ice cream freezer. The court emphasized that the machines were designed to enhance ice cream production by filling tubs with different flavors and adding syrups, chocolate, etc. It was noted that these machines could work independently and were not solely reliant on the ice cream freezer for functionality. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the machines were accessories, citing precedents where similar cases were decided differently based on the specific functions and interdependence of the machines involved. Ultimately, the court upheld the authorities' classification of the machines as independent units, dismissing the appeal without costs.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the classification of Can Filler, Fruit Feeder, and Ripple Machine as independent machines under specific headings of the Customs Tariff Act, based on their functionality and design, despite being related to ice cream production. The court's decision highlights the importance of assessing the independent operability and purpose of machines for accurate classification and duty implications.