Full Judgment
2. Shri V. Sridharan, ld. Advocate, referring to the manufacturing process, claimed that the block board was of special design whereby the middle portion was not filled with the wooden pieces. Referring to the original order, he claimed that the sample examined by the Assistant Collector had a gap in the middle. He stated that the hole or the gap was specifically created for fitment of sewing machine. In the form it was cleared it was not marketable as block board. It was exclusively used by manufacturers of sewing machines. Since the entry at Heading 8452 covered bases specially designed for sewing machines, the classification suggested by the assessees was appropriate.
3. Shri Kannan, ld. DR arguing for the Revenue relied upon the process of manufacture and claimed that the goods manufactured, according to the process, would qualify for the term 'block board' and merit classification under Chapter 44.
5. The process of manufacture as supplied to the Assistant Collector on his specific demand, read as under : "PROCESS OF OF SEWING MACHINE TOP. - Firstly frame is made from season wood and then a second frame is inserted inside the first frame. The space between the two frames 1st filled with wooden pieces.
The space inside the second frame is not filled as the sewing machine is fitted at this space.
After the assembly two veneers are placed on both sides at right angles and the sewing machine top compressed under temperature and pressure with an adhesive. The top is then cut and sanded to a smooth finish.
The end user can cut open a space provided for fitting the machine and laminate if desired." 6. The sample placed before the Assistant Collector was described by him as 'a block board having a gap in the middle and slots on either side.' The Collector (Appeals) had considered both the statements while holding that the impugned goods were 'block boards'. Even if it was for end user to cut upon the space provided for fitting the machine, the very fact that a specific area was not filled with wooden blocks, would indicate that it was specifically manufactured for a particular use in mind. In other words, even if the manufacturer did not cut open the middle portion, at the time of clearance, it could not be purchased by a consumer of block boards for a purpose other than a manufacture of sewing machine base. The fact that the sides of the gap were not machined, would not alter its identity as a sewing machine base.
Reading to tariff entries it becomes clear that the impugned goods could not merit classification under Heading (sic) 44 but that they must be held to be parts of sewing machines. Since the specific description occurs in Heading 8452, the correct classification was as suggested by the assessees.
7. On these findings, we set aside both the lower orders, allow the appeal and direct consequential relief, if any.