9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ombay [1994 (74) ELT 312 (Tri.)], the impugned order confirmed the rejection of refund claim by the lower authority. 2. One appeal has been filed against the order in appeal no. S/49-40/88/CL decided by the first appellate authority which relates to a demand for short-recovery of Rs. 1,58,59,587.20 adjudicated on 21st October 1987 that was returned to M/s Mahindra & Mahindra through proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court during the pendency of appeal against adjudication order and re-deposited by appellant as pre-condition for continuation of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) in 2002. 3. A further recovery of Rs. 1,18,20,273/- relating to imported goods classified under heading 846694 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 vide order dated 28th March 1997, sought for in refund claim and rejected, came up before the first appellate authority as appeal no. S/49-60/97 CL and was remanded back vide order dated 25th February 1999. 4. Two other appeals, S/47-08/98CL and S/49-16/98CL, sought refund for Rs. 17,15,473 and Rs. 1,16,615/-by claiming classification under 846694 of First Schedule of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 instead of the assessed heading of 820730 of First Sche ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of specific shape, that these support and clamp the primary material in position and also guide the tools which work on metals, and that each such press tool-die can work only in conjunction with a specified press. It is consequently their submission that the press tool/die is a part and parcel of a specific machine tool which is not interchangeable. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that these are not interchangeable tools and are designed for a specific end-use and that the findings in the impugned order that press tool-dies were excluded from classification under Chapter 84 by placing reliance on note (1)(o) is erroneous. Learned Counsel produced catalogues of various tools as well as their description to evince the specialized nature of the tool/die under import. Reliance is placed on the Explanatory Notes to the erstwhile CCN as well as to the Explanatory Notes to the HSN. Reliance was also placed on decisions in Prince Metal Works v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay [1999 (113) ELT 463 (Tribunal), Jay Engineering Works Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise [1997 (94) ELT 527 (Tribunal), Pharmachine Mfg. Co. v. Collector of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under heading 82.07 for levy of Central Excise duty was negated by the Tribunal in re Pharmachine Mfg. Co. In re Sarada Industries, it was held that 82.05 covers tools that can be used in more than one hand tool or machine; this relied upon on an earlier order of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the matter of the very same assessee and had the approval of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal, in re Sundaram Fasteners Ltd, reaffirmed that the classifiability of tools under 8466 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act 1975 as held by the Tribunal in Purewall & Associates Ltd v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1984 (15) ELT 490 (Tribunal) by interpreting the expression 'interchangeable.'. It was held in re Lohia Starlinger Ltd that 'dies' for a specific output is not amenable to description as 'interchangeable' and, therefore, would be classifiable under Chapter 84 of the Tariff. That these fell within the erstwhile Tariff Item 68, and not Tariff Item 51A as claimed by the Revenue, was held in favour of the assessee in re Government Tool Room & Training Centre, Rajajinagar v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore [1982 (10) ELT 898 (Kar.) by the Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had been brought to its notice a different view would well have been taken. It has, therefore, to be held that the decision in Purewals case does not have value precedent. Shri Hidayatullahs argument that the Explanatory Notes were brought to the notice of the Bench as evidenced to the reference in para 4 does not persuade us. This is because the point with reference to the Explanatory Notes was not the question of interchangeability within the meaning of Heading 82.05, but whether Heading 82.05 was confined only to hand tools or not. The decision in Delhi Kanodia Tin & Drum Factory [1989 (43) ELT 531 (Tribunal)] followed the decision in Purewal without much discussion. In the Lohia Starlinger Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [1992 (57) ELT 105 (Tribunal)] there was a reference to the Explanatory Notes but only in the context of whether plastic extruders were machine tools falling under Heading 84.59. It was not with regard to interchangeability as figuring in Heading 82.05. No doubt, this decision was passed after the decision in New Haven Steel Ball Corpn. Ltd. However, it is evident that the latter case was not pointed out to the Bench which decided the Lohia Starlinger case. If ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
