Judgment:
1. The impugned goods declared by the appellants as Coffee Huller were claimed to be eligible to benefit of Notification No. 390/86-C.E., dated 29-7-1986 as amended. Customs Authorities however, held that Notification No. 390/86 exempts coffee huller or peeler-cum-polisher and the impugned machine, in addition to hulling, also serves the function of de-stoning and pneumatic separator and, therefore, the benefit of notification which exempts coffee huller cannot be extended to the impugned goods.
3. Ld. DR reiterates the departmental arguments and submits that it is not a simple coffee huller but a complex machine which not only performs the function of hulling but also a destoner and pneumatic separator.
4. We have heard ld. DR and perused the records of the case.
Notification 390/86 exempts coffee huller or peeler-cum-polisher. It also exempts coffee grader, UV sorting machine for coffee, vipro Grader or Gravity separator for coffee. The appellants in their appeal memo have pleaded that basically the impugned machine is a huller. Destoner performs the function of removing stones and extraneous matters before the coffee beans are fed into the Huller. It has no independent function to perform except in conjunction with the Huller and is specifically provided to ensure that the Huller does not get damaged in the process of hulling owing to presence of stones and other extraneous matters. The elevator is a contraption for feeding the coffee beans into the Huller continuously and at a set speed in order to ensure that the Huller performs its functions of de-husking coffee beans at the optimum level of efficiency. It therefore only contributes to the efficiency and the level of performance -of the Huller. The grader is a simple arrangement whereby the heavier beans are separated from the lighter beans.
What we find here is that the Huller imported is a sophisticated machine having the inbuilt infrastructure for simultaneously de-stoning, elevating and grading of the beans. The machine basically is a hulling machine and the functions which other parts of the machine perform are functions primarily incidental and ancillary to the main function. Merely because the machine for hulling is also designed to carry out functions preliminary to hulling would not deprive the machine of its basic character of coffee huller. In fact certificate dated 21-9-1989 from Secretary, Coffee Board, Bangalore placed at page 42 of the appeal papers indicates that: "The Coffee Huller Model Con-6 manufactured by M/s. Pinhalense S.A. Maquinas Agricolas, Brazil is an improved type of machine which performs the operation of hulling after removing the impurities/stones from the uncured coffee and upgrades the quality of hulled coffee by separating the lights/defective beans by means of pneumatic separation. The destoner and pneumatic separator found in this machine are not optional but are integral parts of the coffee huller which help in upgrading the quality of hulled coffee.
This type of improved coffee hullers have been recommended for import because of the fact that the indigenous hullers do not incorporate these requisite and important features from the point of view of quality".
It will, therefore, appear that what is imported is a Huller and the additional functions performed are functions which contribute to the principal function. As certified by Coffee Board, the entire machine is meant for Hulling and the destoner and pneumatic separator in it are integral parts of the coffee huller which help in upgrading the quality of hulled coffee. The impugned goods, therefore, do not cease to be huller merely because some functions preliminary to hulling which only contribute to efficient hulling are also performed by it. In any case we find Notification No. 390/86 covers among others Coffee Graders of Gravity separators, U.V. sorting machine etc. However, we would prefer to take the view that a compact machine which is primarily designed for hulling, is certified to be huller, but is with separator to perform functions preliminary or ancillary to .the main function continues to remain a Huller.Sanghi Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay -1996 (82) E.L.T. 238 (Tribunal) it was held by Tribunal that Notification No. 16/85-Cus., dated 1-3-1985 is available to the machines imported even though the machine is capable of performing multiple functions. In case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 80 (Tribunal), the Tribunal has held that merely because the machine imported capable of performing two functions one at a time, it is not to be considered as composite machine and therefore, benefit of exemption Notification No. 40/78, dated 1-3-1978 would be available. In case of Escorts Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi -1996 (88) E.L.T. 379 (Tribunal), this Bench held that mere fact that instrument also carry a function other than those specified in the Notification 161/86-Cus. would not have the effect of denying the benefit of exemption. In case of Collector of Customs, Madras v. T.I. Diamond Chain Ltd. -1997 (89) E.L.T. 804 (Tribunal), this Tribunal held that machine imported was basically a bolt/nut making machine with inbuilt capability to make other components would continue to get benefit of exemption No. 40/78 in spite of versatility of machine.
6. We, therefore, hold that the impugned machine is basically a coffee huller and would be eligible to exemption in spite of attachments which perform functions preliminary and incidental to the main function.