1997 (9) TMI 306 - AT - Central Excise

Coffee machinery - Import of coffee huller plant with separate invoices for each item of the machinery

Summary

Issues:
Benefit of Notification 390/86 regarding import of coffee machinery.

Analysis:

1. Benefit of Notification 390/86:
The issue in the appeal concerns the benefit of Notification 390/86 related to the import of coffee machinery. The appellant contended that they should receive the benefit for all machinery units except for specific items like Vibrating conveyor, Bucket elevator, Mechanicals Controls, and Fans. The appellant argued that the imported machinery was a set designed to work together for coffee hulling, as per the notification. However, the department argued that the benefit extended to individual items of machinery and not the entire plant. The contention was that each item, though supplementary, had to be evaluated individually. The appellant cited legal precedents to support their claim, but the department highlighted that the individual items had distinct functions and pricing, not meeting the conditions of the accessory rule.

2. Evaluation of Arguments:
The Tribunal considered both sides' arguments. It was observed that each item of machinery was separately invoiced, indicating individual functions and separability. While the appellant claimed the entire unit should be treated as one machinery item under the notification, the Tribunal noted that the notification specified benefits for individual items like Coffee Huller, Coffee Polisher, Gravity separator, and Grader. The Tribunal emphasized that the benefit was not extended to all items collectively. The accessory rule was discussed, with the department asserting that the conditions were not met in this case. The Tribunal concluded that the items of machinery could not be considered accessories to each other, as they did not meet the criteria for such classification. Therefore, the accessory rule could not be invoked, and the benefit claimed by the appellant was denied.

3. Decision and Dismissal of Appeal:
Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the benefit of the notification had to be strictly interpreted, and since it did not include provisions for granting benefits to accessories, the appellant's claim could not be allowed. As the items of machinery did not qualify as accessories and were invoiced separately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments. The decision was based on the specific language and scope of Notification 390/86, which limited the benefit to individual items of machinery as outlined in the notification.