Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. JaIn Irrigation Systems

1. the revenue is aggrieved by the order of the commissioner of customs (appeals), mumbai, who has accepted the importer's claim for classification of pipes of plastic coated as parts of agricultural drip irrigation equipments under chapter heading 84.24 of the cta, while it is the contention of the revenue that the goods are nothing but pipes of plastic falling under chapter heading 39.17.3. we find that the commissioner (appeals)'s detailed description of the goods as 'dual chambered emission tubing featuring a main supply chamber through which the water flows and have laser drilled small water emission orifices at regular intervals' has not been disputed in the appeal before us and what is disputed is the classification of the goods. the literature of the items imported clearly shows that these are pans of drip irrigation system and in this context the decisions of the tribunal in the case of elgi utlra appliances ltd. v. cce, coimbatore cce, aurangabad v. epc irrigation 2002 (142) elt 630 and flow tech power v. cce, coimbatore 2001 (42) rlt 220 holding that such plastic pipes are for exclusive use in drip irrigation/sprinkler irrigation systems fall for classification under heading 84.24 of the ceta, 1985 and not under heading 39.17, are clearly attracted to the facts of the present case. we also note that the appeal to the supreme court by the revenue in the case of elgi ultra appliances ltd. has been dismissed by the supreme court (civil appeal no. 7578/1999) on 7/01/2000 as seen from 2000 (120) elt a119.4. following the ratio of the above orders we hold that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.