1991 (7) TMI 188 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported staplers under Heading 84.32 or 84.51/55(1) CTA

Detailed Analysis:

Issue: Classification of imported staplers under Heading 84.32 or 84.51/55(1) CTA

The case involved the classification of Max HD-3R staplers imported by M/s. East West Exporters under either Heading 84.32 or 84.51/55(1) CTA. The appellant claimed the assessment under Heading 84.32 based on a previous appellate decision and subsequent assessments of identical consignments. The Revenue assessed the staplers under Heading 84.51/55(1) CTA. The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) both concluded that the staplers fell under Heading 84.51/55(1) CTA, considering them as office machines used for fixing documents together, not as book binding machinery under Heading 84.32. The appellant argued for acceptance of the appeal, citing previous decisions and alternative assessment under Heading No. 82.05. The Revenue contended that the specific entry of Heading 84.51/55(1) should be applied as the staplers imported were not suitable for book binding and differed in design from book binding machines. The Revenue relied on Interpretary Rule 3(A) and 3(C) to support their argument. The Tribunal analyzed the description of the staplers from the catalogue, emphasizing the stapling capacity and usage as a desk type stapler. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents regarding the binding nature of previous decisions in assessment proceedings, highlighting that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to assessment decisions. The Tribunal also considered the Supreme Court's decision in J.K. Synthetics v. Union of India regarding the consistency of views by Excise authorities without valid reasons.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Revenue's classification under Heading 84.51/55(1) CTA, dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal reasoned that the staplers were more appropriately classified as office machines under this heading based on their design and usage characteristics, despite the appellant's arguments and alternative suggestions for assessment under a different heading. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of specific headings in classification matters and rejected the appellant's contentions, including the reliance on previous decisions and the argument for alternative classification under Heading 82.05 BTN.