1987 (4) TMI 160 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the imported step and repeat machine under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
2. Amendment of grounds of appeal by the appellant.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of the Imported Step and Repeat Machine:

The primary issue in this case revolves around the correct classification of the "Lu Cop II/M-Film Step and Repeat Machine" imported by the respondents under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (CTA 1975). Initially, the machine was assessed to duty under Heading 90.10, which pertains to apparatus and equipment used in photographic or cinematographic laboratories, photocopying apparatus, and thermo copying apparatus. The respondents contested this classification, arguing that the machine should be classified under Heading 84.35 as it is ancillary to printing machinery.

The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the refund claim by the respondents, affirming the original classification under Heading 90.10. However, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) overturned this decision, classifying the machine under Heading 84.35, which covers other printing machinery and machinery for uses ancillary to printing. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) noted that the machine was intended for use in textile printing and other graphic arts applications, distinguishing it from photocopying machines.

The Revenue, dissatisfied with this reclassification, appealed to the Tribunal, arguing for the original classification under Heading 90.10 or alternatively under Heading 84.59(1), which pertains to machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions not specified elsewhere.

2. Amendment of Grounds of Appeal by the Appellant:

The appellant, represented by Shri J. Gopinath, sought to amend the grounds of appeal to include an alternative classification under Heading 84.59(1). Shri J.M. Patel, representing the respondents, objected to this amendment, arguing that the application was not signed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, who is the appellant, and that the grounds of appeal should not go beyond those initially raised.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment, citing that any ground based purely on a point of law can be urged at any stage. This decision was supported by previous judgments of the Tribunal, which emphasized that raising new grounds of appeal related to the correct classification of goods is permissible to ensure a proper and just disposal of the case.

On Merits:

The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, referred to the relevant headings under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975:

- Heading 90.10: Apparatus and equipment used in photographic or cinematographic laboratories, photocopying apparatus, and thermo copying apparatus.
- Heading 84.35: Other printing machinery; machinery for uses ancillary to printing.
- Heading 84.59(1): Machines and mechanical appliances, having individual functions, not falling within any other heading of this chapter.
- Heading 84.40: Machinery for printing repetitive designs on textiles, leather, wallpaper, etc.

The Tribunal concluded that the imported machine most appropriately falls under Heading 84.40, which covers machines used for printing repetitive designs on textiles and other materials. This conclusion was supported by a previous judgment in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Bharat Vijay Mills, Kalol, which held that the step and repeat machine should be classified under Heading 84.40 due to its use in printing repetitive designs.

The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's argument for classification under Heading 90.10 or the alternative plea for Heading 84.59(1). It also dismissed the respondents' argument for classification under Heading 84.34. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the step and repeat machine falls under Heading 84.40 of the CTA 1975 and disposed of the appeal accordingly.