Judgment:
1. The question for decision in this appeal, originally initiated by issuing the Review Show Cause Notice by the Govt. of India by virtue of powers vested in them under erstwhile Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 is whether the Steam Presses with Portable Boilers and Ironing & Cleaning Tables imported by the respondent should be classified under sub-heading (1) of heading 84.40 of CTA, 1975 as held by the Appellate Collector of Customs or under sub-heading (2) of the same heading as held by the adjudicating authority.
2. Factual backdrop: M/s. Indexpo International Pvt. Ltd., respondent herein imported a consignment of 2 Steam Presses with Portable Boilers, 4 Steam Ironing and Clianing Tables and various spare parts for the above. The machines were classified under heading 84.40(2), CTA 1975 and 33C of CET and duty was levied at 60% + 15% basic Customs duty and plus 30% c.v.d. The spare parts were assessed to duty on merits.
Subsequently the respondent preferred a claim before the Asstt.
Collector of Custom for re-assessment and refund of duty on the grounds that machines were correctly classifiable under heading 80.40(1), CTA 1975 and that they were not chargeable to c.v.d. The respondent did not claim reassessment of spares. The Asstt. Collector rejected the claim vide his order dated 19.9.1980 and upheld the original assessment.
Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred their appeal before the Appellate Collector of Customs who vide his order dated 16.1.1981 allowed the claim in respect of spare parts. In respect of the Steam Presses and Tables, the basic classification was ordered to be under heading 84.40(1), CTA 1975 but then classification under Item33C of CET was confirmed, and at the same time it was held that Steam Cables are not liable to c.v.d in view of Notification No. 33/69. Thereupon the Govt. of India issued the Review Show Cause Notice to the respondent calling upon them to show casue why the order of the Appellate Collector be not set aside. The show cause notice proposed to restore subheading 84.40(2) for the basic duty on the ground that the word "domestic" in this heading qualified only washing machinery and not "laundry and dry cleaning machinery" which was separated by a comma.
However, for c.v. duty, the show cause notice conceded that the machinery, being industrial and not domestic, fell under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and not under Item 33C.3. We have heard Shri D. K. Saha, learned JDR and Shri J. Banerjee, Ld.
counsel for the respondent.
4. Shri D. K. Saha, learned JDR at the outset submitted that it is a covered case in favour of the department in as much as it was held by this Tribunal in the case of Aristrocrate Internal Pvt. Ltd. v.Collector of Customs 1984 (16) ELT 433 that steam press with portable boiler alongwith Ironing and Cleaning Tables is classifiable under heading 84.40(2) of CTA, 1975 and not under heading 84.40(1) as contended by the respondent. In reply Shri J. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though there is a decision of this Tribunal on this issue as pointed out by the learned JDR, still this Tribunal should not interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs in view of the decision rendered by the Kerala High Court in the case of Govt. of India v. A. S. Bawa, 1980 (6) ELT 625. We are afraid this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted. In the case of Govt. of India V.A.S.Bawa, supra cited by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Kerala High Court after stating that the jurisdiction exercised by the Govt.
of India under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 being revisional in character, it is not expected to treat the proceedings as an appeal and substitute its own conclusions on questions of facts in place of those arrived at by the subordinate authorities, had also stated: "But the revisional authority must, all the same, examine the legality, propriety and correctness of the findings entered by the subordinate authorities and in case it is found that a finding of fact can legitimately be characterised as 'improper' in the sense of its being wholly unreasonable of perverse, it is the duty of the revisional authority to interfere with such findings and render justice between the parties." Applying the ratio of the said case, we feel that the issue involved in the instant case does not involve the appreciation of facts but relates to the classification of the imported goods. Consequently, we feel duty bound to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs.
5. On merits, Shri J. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondent could not point out anything against the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Aristocrate Pvt. Ltd., supra, consequently we set aside the impugned order passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs dated 16.1.1981 and restore the order of Assistant Collector dated 19.9.1980 with the modification that c.v. duty be assessed under Item 68 CET as conceded in the review show cause notice.