1987 (8) TMI 328 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of whether the imported goods qualify for the benefit of Notification No. 40/78-Customs as a "Rotary Milling Machine for Crank Shaft."
2. Discrepancy in descriptions between the imported machine and the requirements under the notification.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The main issue in this appeal was to determine if the goods imported by the appellants, labeled as "Automatic Crank Shaft Milling Machine," could be considered a "Rotary Milling Machine" for "Crank Shaft" to be eligible for the benefits under Notification No. 40/78-Customs. The Assistant Collector and the Collector of Customs (Appeals) had differing opinions based on the features and descriptions of the machines involved.

2. The Assistant Collector rejected the appellants' claim, citing that the imported machine lacked certain provisions found in a typical "Rotary Milling Machine" as per an extract from the 'Engineering Encyclopaedia.' On the other hand, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) noted distinctions between a Crank Shaft Milling Machine and a Crank Shaft Rotary Milling Machine based on the manufacturer's catalogue and the operations performed by each type of machine.

3. The appellants argued that the extract from the Engineering Encyclopaedia did not specifically refer to a Rotary Milling Machine for Crank Shaft and highlighted that their machine involved rotary motion in both the Milling Cutter and the workpiece. They also presented evidence from the Directorate General of Technical Development (DGTD) confirming the imported machine as a "Rotary Milling Machine for Crank Shaft."

4. The lower authorities, however, disregarded the DGTD confirmation, stating it was only relevant for import policy and not customs classification. The Senior Departmental Representative (SDR) pointed out discrepancies in the descriptions provided in the invoice and the Bill of Entry, emphasizing the need for a strict interpretation of the notification's requirements.

5. The Tribunal examined the arguments from both sides and acknowledged the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes a "Rotary Milling Machine" under the notification. They considered the practical aspects of the machine's operations, where both the Milling Cutter and the workpiece exhibited rotary movements, similar to the concept discussed in the Engineering Encyclopaedia.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal accepted the appellants' submissions, noting the absence of statutory or official guidance on defining a Rotary Machine. They relied on the practical demonstration of rotary movements in the imported machine and the opinion of the DGTD to conclude that the machine qualified as a Rotary Machine under the notification. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and consequential relief was granted to the appellants.