1997 (3) TMI 204 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of classification of sewing machines under OGL and Exemption Notification, distinction between chain stitch and lock stitch machines, applicability of Notification No. 16/85, whether interlock machines are exempted, understanding of the term "Multiple" in the context of sewing machines.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged an Order-in-Original by the Additional Collector of Customs, Kandla regarding the classification of impugned goods as chain stitch Overedging Machine. The dispute centered around whether interlock machines and chainstitch machines are the same, as argued by the appellants, or if there is a technical distinction between the two types of machines, as contended by the Departmental Representative (D.R.). The D.R. emphasized the purpose of including specific machines in the exemption Notification to enhance the efficiency of the textile industry. The Tribunal examined the classification of sewing machines into Principal, Secondary, and Tertiary classes based on stitch form and bed shape, establishing a clear distinction between chain stitch and lock stitch machines.

The Tribunal acknowledged the technical difference between chain stitch and lock stitch machines, emphasizing that the machines in question were high-speed multiple needle sewing machines. The appellants argued that despite not conforming to specific descriptions in the Notification, the machines should be exempted based on the broad description of a general heading. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, noting that the machines met the description of "High Speed Multiple Needle Sewing Machines" under the Notification. The D.R. raised concerns about the interpretation of the term "Multiple," but the Tribunal held that the plain meaning of the term should be applied without delving into legislative intent.

Citing legal precedents, including judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Bombay High Court, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of giving effect to the ordinary meaning of words in Notifications and statutory provisions. The Tribunal concluded that the machines in question fell under the description of High Speed Multiple Needle Sewing Machines, as indicated in both the Exemption Notification and the ITC provisions. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting relief to the appellants.