9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Classification of automatic circular stacking and splitting machine under Tariff Heading 84.59(1) or 84.59(2) of CTA 1975. Analysis: The appeal filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay challenges the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay regarding the classification of an automatic circular stacking and splitting machine, described as a "Foam cutting machine" by the respondents. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the respondents' claim of assessment under Tariff Heading 84.59(2) of CTA 1975, considering the machine to shape foam into different foam products available in the market. The respondents argued that the machine manufactured marketable commodities like foam mattresses and cushions by cutting foam blocks, making them suitable for sale. The Collector (Appeals) relied on a precedent assessment and allowed the appeal with consequential relief to the respondents. The appellant contended that the machine only cut and stacked pre-formed blocks of polyurethane foam, not producing foam products independently. The appellant argued that the machine did not create a new commodity as cutting foam blocks did not change the nature of the foam itself. The appellant relied on a previous Tribunal's decision to support the classification under Tariff Heading 84.59(1) for machines with individual functions not specified elsewhere. The respondent's advocate argued that the registration certificate with the Directorate of Small Scale Industries mentioning polyurethane foam did not preclude the manufacture of other foam products. The advocate highlighted that sub-heading (2) of Tariff Heading 84.59 covered machinery designed for the production of commodities, and the machine in question produced well-known marketable products like foam mattresses and sheets. The advocate emphasized that the purpose or use of the machine was essential for classification, as per the Supreme Court's judgment. The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and analyzed Tariff Heading 84.59, noting that sub-heading (2) was more specific than sub-heading (1). The Tribunal concluded that the machine in question was designed for the production of commodities like foam products, which were marketable goods. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's reliance on the registration certificate and catalog, emphasizing that the machine's purpose and function determined its classification. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the classification under Tariff Heading 84.59(2) as decided by the Collector (Appeals) and rejected the appeal.
|
