Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Hind High Vacuum Co. (P) Ltd.

1. the assessees in this case were manufacturing lyophiliser. the assessees classified these goods under heading 84.19 and sought benefit of notification no. 155/86, dated 1-3-1986. the assistant commissioner accepted the classification but denied the benefit of the notification.the collector having extended the benefit, the revenue are before us in appeal.2. we have heard shri k. srivastava, senior departmental representative. the respondents were not present.3. heading 84.19 as reproduced below covers a variety of machinery, plant or laboratory equipments. "heading 84.19 - machinery, plant or laboratory equipment, whether or not electrically heated, for the treatment of materials by a process involving a change of temperature such as heating cooking, roasting, distilling, rectifying, steriling, pasteurising, steaming, drying, evaporating, vaporising, condensing or cooling, other than machinery or plant of a kind used for domestic purposes; instantaneous or storage, water heaters, non-electric." the entry at serial no. 3 of notification no. 155/86-c.e., dated 1-3-1986 reads as under: "goods other than refrigerating and air-conditioning machinery and parts thereof." 4. on reading the description in the heading and the exclusion clause it would be clear that only that machinery which is used for "condensing or cooling" would be excluded from the purview of the notification. the hsn on which the cet is based specifically refers to lyophilisation in classifying these under the heading "evaporating or drying plant". it may be that the process of evaporating may involve refrigeration but the machinery cannot be classified as refrigerating machinery. we find no infirmity in the logic of the collector.upholding his order, we dismiss this appeal of the revenue.