1997 (10) TMI 250 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of benefit under Notification 139/90 for an automatic coating thickness measuring instrument.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras revolves around the interpretation and applicability of the benefit provided under Notification 139/90 for an automatic coating thickness measuring instrument, specifically the Fisherscope X-ray 1510, claimed under Sl. No. 40 of the Notification. The issue primarily focuses on the scope of the entry at Sl. No. 40, which pertains to "Electrical measuring, checking or automatically controlling instrument and apparatus." The explanation to the Notification further elaborates on the types of instruments covered, including those for measuring or detecting alpha, beta, gamma, X-ray, cosmic, or similar radiations, and automatic regulators of electrical quantities.

The appellant's counsel argued that the goods in question should be considered under the category described in sub-heading (c) of the explanation, as the instrument utilizes radiation to measure the depth of the coating, falling under Tariff Heading 90.22. On the other hand, the department's representative contended that the instrument's scope under sub-heading (c) is limited to instruments required for detecting or measuring specific types of radiations, which is not the primary function of the imported instrument in this case. The department argued that the instrument uses radiation as an aid for measuring the coating thickness, rather than functioning as a radiation detection apparatus.

After considering both arguments, the Tribunal concluded that the instrument in question is primarily designed for measuring the thickness of the coating, with the radiation serving as a tool for quantifying this parameter. The Tribunal emphasized that the instrument's use of radiation is not for the purpose of detecting or measuring the specific radiations enumerated in sub-heading (c) of the explanation. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appellants were rightly denied the benefit of the Notification, as the instrument did not fall within the intended scope of instruments or apparatus under sub-heading (c) for measuring or detecting radiation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal.