1997 (3) TMI 357 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported product as liquid flowmeter under Chapter Heading 90.26 or liquid meter under Chapter sub-heading 9028.20.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of an imported product described as a liquid flowmeter Model SN 25E. The department contended that the product should be classified under Chapter Heading 90.26 as a flowmeter, while the appellants argued that it should be classified under Chapter sub-heading 9028.20 as a liquid meter. The lower authorities upheld the classification under Chapter Heading 90.26.

The appellants supported their argument by submitting technical literature and the manufacturer's catalogue, which described the application of the imported goods for volumetric measurement of liquids. They emphasized the distinction between flowmeter and liquid meter, stating that a flowmeter measures flow rate or level of liquid per unit of time, while a liquid meter indicates the total amount of liquid delivered over a period. The appellants contended that the imported product was not designed to measure the flow of liquid per unit of time, supporting its classification as a liquid meter under Chapter sub-heading 9028.20.

On the other hand, the department relied on the declaration in the bill of entry and the description of the product in the invoice, asserting that the product was a flowmeter falling under Chapter Heading 90.26. They argued that the appellants failed to prove why the description should be limited to a liquid meter rather than a flowmeter as indicated in the documents.

After considering the submissions, the Tribunal analyzed the manufacturer's catalogue, which indicated the product Model SN 25E and its application for volumetric measurement without specifying measurement of flow per unit of time. The Tribunal also referenced the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) classification and the Notes under Chapter sub-headings to determine the classification. It was noted that the product did not demonstrate the capability to measure the flow of liquid per unit of time, leading to the conclusion that it was more aligned with a liquid meter under Chapter sub-heading 9028.20.

In light of the evidence and analysis, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the appeal and classifying the product as a liquid meter under Chapter sub-heading 9028.20. The decision emphasized the importance of the manufacturer's catalogue and the lack of evidence supporting the product's classification as a flowmeter under Chapter Heading 90.26.