Full Judgment
A milling cutter cannot be operated by hand and it is not, therefore, a hand saw. The subject cutter blades are known in trade parlance as serrated blade cutter or inserted tooth cutter. They can be used only in milling cutters. They cannot be used In machine saws. Sawing machines are used only for sawing or parting of materials into pieces whereas milling cutters are used for removing material by the process of slotting boring, drilling, broaching, facing, grooving etc. The cutting blades manufactured by the appellants are in unfinished condition and cannot be used for cutting purpose. The cutting angles of the blades are formed only after insertion of the same in the body of the milling cutter and subjecting them to the process of angle-cutting, grinding etc.
4. The Collector has relied on the explanatory notes to the Customs Co-operation Council Nomenclature (C.C.C.N) heading 82.06 ("Knives and cutting blades, for machines or for mechanical appliances") showing blades and knives for fitting into tools for machine tools e.g. into reamers or milling cutters. The Collector held that only blades and not industrial knives [in Item No. 51 A(iv) CET] would be for hand or machine saws. He held that the subject blades were nothing but replaceable knives or so-called blades for fitting into tools for machine tools. On this reasoning, he classified the goods under Item No. 51A(lv). CET.5. The appellants did not appear at the hearing. We have heard Shri L.C. Chakraborty, DR, for the respondent and perused the record.
6. A close reading of the order, to our mind, shows that the Collector has not commented on or controverted the submissions made by the appellants but has come to his conclusion on the basis of his own logic. Even so, as the appellants point out, he has viewed the subject blades (or replaceable knives, as he would call them) as for fitting into tools for machine tods. If this be so, the more rational classification would appear to be under Item No. 51 A(ill), GET.7. The Collector's reliance on the explanatory notes under Heading 82.06 of the C.C.C.N. Is misplaced. Firstly, the relevant CET was not based on the C.C.C.N. Secondly, it may be seen that the wordings of the two entries are not similar. The C.C.C.N. heading takes In knives and cutting blades, for machines or mechanical appliances whereas the CET entry takes In Industrial knives and blades for hand or machine saws.
The iscope of the two entries is not exactly the same. It Is apparently in the context of the wording of the Heading 82.06 of the C.C.C.N. that the explanatory notes say that blades and knives for fitting into tools for machine tools, e.g. into reamers or milling cutters, are indudad In the heading. The notes themselves give examples of the types of knives otherwise sought to be included: knives for machines for cutting paper, textiles, plastics etc., for agricultural machines, tobacco - shredding machines, etc. The present goods do not fit into any of these types. On the other hand, milling machines which work on a plane or profile surface by means of rotating tools (known as milling cutters) are listed in the C.C.C.N. notes as machine tools under Heading 84.45. It Is clear, nor is it In dispute, that the subject goods are rotating tools and they are designed to be fitted Into machine tools. And, such tools designed to be fitted Into machine tools, clearly fall under Item No. 51 A(iil), CET.8. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the goods in question fell under Item No. 51 A(iil), CET. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugn ad order is set aside.