1996 (11) TMI 161 - AT - Customs

Labelling Machine - Fully Automatic Labelling Machine - Interpretation of Exemption notification

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods under Heading 84.19 of CTA.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 47/89 to additional devices imported with the main machine.
3. Interpretation of Section Notes, Chapter Notes, and Rules of Interpretation in the context of exemption notifications.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Goods under Heading 84.19 of CTA:

The appellants imported a Fully Automatic Labelling Machine Type JOWE-9/III along with additional devices such as adjustable label magazines and glue cylinders. The main machine was classified under Heading 84.19 of the Customs Tariff Act (CTA), which pertains to "machinery for labelling bottles." The appellant argued that these additional devices should also be classified under the same heading as they function in conjunction with the main machine. The Tribunal noted that the department had not separately classified these additional machines but had included them under Heading 84.19, acknowledging their function in bottle labelling.

2. Applicability of Notification No. 47/89 to Additional Devices Imported with the Main Machine:

The benefit of Notification No. 47/89 was extended only to the Fully Automatic Labelling Machine and not to the additional devices. The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) opined that the notification did not cover parts or accessories, only the main machine. The appellants contended that the additional devices are integral parts of the main machine, performing the same function, and thus should be covered under the notification. The Tribunal examined the catalogue and found that these devices work in harmony with the main machine, making them essential for its operation. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the additional devices should also be granted the benefit of the notification.

3. Interpretation of Section Notes, Chapter Notes, and Rules of Interpretation in the Context of Exemption Notifications:

The appellants argued that the Rules of Interpretation, Section Notes, and Chapter Notes should be applied to interpret the notification, citing various judgments. The department, however, contended that these interpretative tools are meant solely for classification purposes and not for interpreting exemption notifications. The Tribunal acknowledged the conflicting views but ultimately decided that the classification of the additional items was based on their function as machinery for labelling bottles, not on interpretative rules. Therefore, the benefit of the notification could not be denied.

The Tribunal also noted that the Larger Bench in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. had held that interpretative rules could be applied to notifications if the tariff heading and notification description were identical. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the classification in this case was done on merits, not based on interpretative rules.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting the benefit of Notification No. 47/89 to the additional devices imported with the Fully Automatic Labelling Machine. The Tribunal held that these devices are not merely parts but essential components of the main machine, performing the same function of labelling bottles. The Tribunal also clarified that while interpretative rules can guide classification, the specific function and integration of the devices with the main machine were the primary factors for granting the notification benefit.

Separate Judgment:

While agreeing with the conclusion, another member of the Tribunal expressed a differing view on the applicability of interpretative rules for notifications. This member cited several judgments to support the position that Rules of Interpretation, Section Notes, and Chapter Notes are intended only for classification purposes and should not be extended to interpret exemption notifications. This member emphasized that the imported items were essential parts of the labelling machine and not additional parts, thus justifying the extension of the notification benefit.

← Previous Next →