9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T)]. - This appeal was originally filed as a revision application before the Government of India and was statutorily transferred to the Tribunal. 2. The appellants imported 3 mortar grinders model KM-2 each-with 2 sets of porcelain mortar and pestle and 1 mortar grinder model KM-1 with 2 sets of porcelain mortar and pestle. On importation the customs assessed the goods (except mortars and pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t there was nothing on record to indicate that the grinding bowl was assessed separately. He thought that the appellants were Under a major mis-conception . 5. We heard Shri Uma Shankar Bhar of the appellants. Shri Bhar explains that the appellants manufacture Homoeopathic medicines and are well known. The imported machines are utilized for a process called Trituration which consists of grindin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so not for agglomerating, moulding or shaping solid mineral fuels, ceramic paste, unhardened cements, plastering materials or other mineral products in powder and paste form. With reference to Heading 84.59(2) Shri Gopinath pointed out that Heading 84.59(2) covers only those machines which are designed for the production of a commodity. Shri Gopinath argues that the appellants may be utilizing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduced by the appellants. Insofar as the classification of the grinder is concerned we agree with the submissions made by Shri J. Gopinath that 84.56 does not cover them. The words used in 84.59(2) are such that the design of the machine is important for the purpose of classification. Our perusal of the catalogue shows that the imported goods, as submitted by Shri Gopinath, perform several functi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta for a fresh decision after giving the appellants an opportunity to put forward their case and to file such evidence before him as admissible by law. Accordingly we partly reject this appeal and partly allow it by remand. The impugned order is upheld in insofar as the classification of the grinders is concerned and set aside to the extent that it dealt with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
