Judgment:
1. This appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal passed by Commissioner of Customs & C.Ex (Appeals) upholding the O-I-O holding that angle grinder imported by the appellant and described as such in the Bill of Entry and the relative invoice was classifiable under T.H.8508.80 as complete tools and not under T.H.8508.90 as parts thereof as claimed by the appellant.
2. Arguing the case for the appellant, Ld. Counsel stated that it was pleaded before the authorities below that a complete angle grinder consists of 90 parts as against which they had imported only 55 parts.
These were incomplete for the purpose of assembling and manufacturing an angle grinder. It was explained that the description in the invoice as CKD sets for angle grinder had been given to distinguish the goods imported which were meant for assembling and manufacture of such product from the parts which were being imported for supply as 'spares'. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision rendered in their own case as reported in 1992 (62) ELT 30.
3. The plea was not accepted by the Asstt. Commissioner who relied upon the Interpretative Rule 2(a) and also explanatory notes under Section XVI at page 1132 of HSN explanatory notes para-IV regarding incomplete machine. He took note of the said note laying down that any reference in the said Section to a machine or an apparatus covers not only a complete machine but also an incomplete machine provided it already has the main feature of the complete machine. On this basis, he has proceeded to hold that even if the complete assembly of parts results in an incomplete machine and it has the essential feature of the complete machine; it stands to reason that the set of parts imported by the appellant should be classified as a complete angle grinder under heading No. 8508.80. He also relied upon the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Sharp Business Systems v. CC.4. It was contended in reply by Shri. R. Victor Thiagaraj, Ld. SDR that reliance placed upon the interpretative rule and by the authorities below is appropriate and the impugned orders deserve to be upheld.5. We have taken note of the rival submissions, with reference to interpretative rules referred to and followed by the Asstt.
Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) what requires determination is what would be the essential feature or character of the complete article. In the present case, the lower authorities have not adverted to the question as to what the essential character or feature of the angle grinder are and how the assembly of parts imported will have acquired that feature or character of the angle grinder. The order does not also indicate what are the missing parts. This will require further examination at the hands of the adjudicating authority. We accordingly set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter for de novo adjudication by the adjudicating authority after granting appellant an opportunity of hearing to make submissions in this regard.