9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1999 (2) TMI 197 - AT - Central Excise
Issues: Classification of imported item under Notification No. 390/86, Interpretation of the term "Coffee Roaster and Grinder" in the notification.
Classification Issue: The appeal concerned the Classification of an imported Coffee Grinder under Notification No. 390/86. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants were not entitled to the exemption as the item was only a Coffee Roaster, not a Coffee Grinder. The appellants argued that the item was for Coffee Curing Machinery and should be classified under Chapter Heading 8479.82. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's reasoning, stating that the item was not a domestic appliance but an industrial one. They noted that the item's capacity and intended use for commercial purposes supported its classification as an industrial machine. The Tribunal overruled the Classification under sub-heading 8509.80 and accepted the Classification under sub-heading 8479.82, which covers machines with individual functions. Interpretation Issue: The Commissioner denied the benefit of Notification No. 390/86, Sl. No. 8, as it required the item to be both a "Coffee Roaster and Grinder." The appellants argued that the term "and" should be read as "or" based on precedents interpreting similar terms in other notifications. Citing cases like Consolidated Petrotech Industries Ltd. v. CCE, the Tribunal agreed with the appellants' interpretation. They held that the term "and" should be read disjunctively as "or" in this context. Therefore, the Coffee Grinder imported for Coffee Curing Machinery was deemed entitled to the benefit of the notification. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the Classification of the imported Coffee Grinder under Notification No. 390/86 and interpreted the term "Coffee Roaster and Grinder" in a manner favorable to the appellants. The decision emphasized the industrial nature of the item and the disjunctive interpretation of the term "and" in the notification.
|
