9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal for extending benefit of Notification No. 125/86-Cus. dated 17-2-1986 for Band Slicer imported as a set with High-Speed packing machines. Detailed Analysis: The appellants, engaged in production and marketing of "Modern Bread," imported machinery sets including Slicer, Bagger, and Tyerbag, seeking concessional rate assessment under Notification No. 125/86 dated 17-2-1986. The Assistant Collector granted the benefit for the Bread Bagger but rejected it for the other machines, stating they could function independently and did not meet the requirements of the Notification. On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) extended the benefit to the Twist Tyer but not to the Slicer, deeming it not a packing or processing machine eligible for the Notification. The appellants argued that the Slicer should be eligible under Sl. No. 23 of Notification No. 125/86-Cus., as slicing is a prerequisite for packing, and the machines work in unison to slice, bag, and tie bread loaves for commercial presentation. They contended that the Slicer's classification under Chapter 8422.40 aligns with the exemption criteria. The Ld. Advocate referenced various Case Laws supporting their stance and highlighted the correct classification under Heading 8422.40 for packing machines. The Respondent J.D.R. argued that the Slicer was classifiable under Heading 8479.89 and not covered by the Notification. He emphasized that the machines could work independently, albeit sharing a prime mover. He dismissed the relevance of Section Notes and Chapter Notes for interpreting the Notification and cited a Case Law to support his position. The Tribunal examined the machines imported by the appellants, including the Bread Bagger, Band Slicer, and Bagtyer, assessed under Heading 8422.40. The Notification No. 125/86-Cus. Sl. No. 23 pertains to aseptic packaging machinery performing various processes beyond packaging. The Tribunal considered the synchronized functions of the machines to pack, bag, and tie bread loaves at high speed as integral to the primary function of packing. Referring to HSN and relevant extracts, the Tribunal concluded that the Slicer, which combines slicing with packing, should be viewed as part of the integrated packaging process, warranting the benefit of the exemption. Additionally, the Tribunal directed a review of the appellants' claim for lower duty assessment on spare parts, remanding the issue for a detailed consideration. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, extending the benefit of the Notification for the Band Slicer imported as a set with the packing machines.
|
