9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original authority has assessed it under Tariff Heading 84.59(1) as a machine having an individual function not elsewhere specified. The respondents herein, however, have claimed the assessment under Tariff Heading 84.59(2) of CTA 1975 which claim has been upheld in the order-in appeal. 2. It is the contention of the respondents that the imported machine manufactures commodities inasmuch as by cutting the foam blocks, the imported machine was making those blocks marketable. By the process of cutting these foam blocks, foam mattresses and foam cushions as such were being manufactured. Without the operation of this machine on the foam blocks such blocks would be uneven on surface and shape and would not have been known as mattresses or cush ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the respondent herein was manufacturing only polyurethane foam and it cannot be said that it was manufacturing polyurethane foam products. Cutting of the foam blocks by itself would not produce a different commodity. Even after cutting the polyurethane foam remains nothing but the foam itself. For this proposition he relied upon Tribunal s order reported in 1983 ECR 760D in the case of M/s. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta. In that case hot mill blocker and ancillary equipment was not found to be classifiable under Tariff heading 84.59(2) on the ground that the blocker is not designed for the production of any commodity, nor is it a machinery for treating metals. Its function is just to pick up the long hot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribed as foam cutting. Its further use cannot be looked into by the Customs authorities for classification. 5. Appearing for the respondent Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate has submitted that only one ground of appeal has been taken in the appeal memorandum filed by the Collector namely that the machine in question only performs an act of cutting the foam blocks which have already come into existence. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned SDR on the registration certificate of the Directorate of Small Scale Industries is uncalled for at the stage of hearing. Nevertheless, he pointed out that this certificate does not prove that the respondents were precluded from making foam products inasmuch as the registration certificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned supra as something which ordinarily comes to the market for being bought and sold. There is no doubt that the various products manufactured by the machine such as sheets, carpet underlays, mattresses etc. are well-known marketable commodities as upheld by the learned Collector (Appeals) and as is evident from Tariff Entry 15A(3), (4) of the Central Excise Tariff read with Notification No. 69/71 dated 29-5-1971. Some specified articles of polyurethane foam falling under sub-item (4) of Item 15A of CET have been subjected to a higher rate of duty than foam blocks falling under sub-item (3) of Item 15A. According to him, cutting has also been held to be a process of manufacture as decided in the case reported at 1984 ECR 2164. Learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nderlays, mattresses, etc. mentioned in the order-in-appeal before us are undoubtedly the products produced by this machine. No evidence to the contrary that these products are nothing but foam and are not known as such in the market has been produced by the department. On the contrary, the learned Advocate for the respondents has relied upon the Central Excise Tariff for treating these products as clearly marketable products inasmuch as they have been subjected to different rate of duty. It is common knowledge that the products mentioned in the order-in-appeal are marketable products and from that angle there is no doubt that the machine in question is one designed for the production of commodities. 6.1 Reliance placed by the learned SDR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been claimed by the respondent originally under heading 84.59(2). The respondent herein had in the first instance contended that the machine in question is used for production line. This plea, therefore, of the learned SDR is not tenable. Purpose of the machine or use of the machine has to be necessarily gone into in view of the wording of heading 84.59(2), as rightly contended by the learned Advocate for the respondents. Last plea of the learned SDR that the catalogue shows the function of the machine only as cutting and not as production of mattresses etc. is without any force. Catalogues are not made out by the manufacturers of the goods solely with a view to determination of classification under the CTA 1975. Function of the catalogue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
