1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal dated 24-7-1985, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. The appellants had imported "Refiner Discs" for refinery for their paper mills as parts of paper making machinery and the same had been declared in the Bill of Entry under Heading 84.31 of the Customs Tariff as they had filed a refund application seeking the benefit of Notification No. 54/84-Cus., dated 1-3-1984, which grants benefit of exemption from payment of duty in respect of auxiliary duty of 25% only. The Assistant Collector in the order-in-original has held that on a perusal of the write up furnished by the claimants, it is seen that the function of the refiner is to defibrate the pulp and increase the freeness of the pulp. He has held that it has nothing to do with paper directly and, therefore, the refiner discs cannot be considered as part of paper making machinery for granting the benefit of the said Notification. On appeal, the Collector confirmed this order. Before the Collector, the appellant had pleaded that the refiner is an equipment installed ahead of the paper machine and the function of the refiner is to refine the pulp that is received either from a pulp mill in the case of an integrated pulp and paper mill or to refine the purchased pulp in the case of an exclusively paper mill unit, before supplying to the machine. It was also stated that the refiner normally defibrates the pulp and increases the freeness of the pulp which is indicated by the term SR. This freeness of the stock that is supplied to the machine is also a varying factor. It decides the product that is made in the paper machine. In this regard, they have also relied on certain technical details. They have also stated that the pulp mills which handles raw materials like bamboo, wood, bagasse, rag, waste paper etc. would be producing the pulp in the conventional method of cooking the raw material, washing, screening, thickening and bleaching. The final pulp that is produced and supplied to the paper machine section will have about 22SR freeness and 77PV brightness if it is a bleached pulp and 20SR freeness and 28PV brightness, if it is a kraft pulp. They have also filed general flow chart FS-174 showing the normal arrangement of any paper machine unit, pulp either manufactured at the pulp mill of the factory or pulp purchased from other source is received in a chest and passed through the refiner to get the freeness increased. The refined pulp is then blended along with the necessary chemicals required for the particular quantity of paper being made on the paper machine and then passed on to the head box of the paper machine for making paper.
The variables like freeness of pulp, additive chemicals, colour etc.
all are decided by the quantity of paper being made in the machine.
Therefore, it has been stated that the control of the refining is naturally done by the paper making personnel.
2. The appellants submits that the writing up has not been considered and the Learned Collector has passed a single lined order rejecting their claim.
3. We have heard Shri K.K. Kapoor, the Learned Consultant for the appellants and Shri Mohan Lal, the Learned DR for the Revenue.
4. The Learned Consultant submitted that the issue has already been decided by the Tribunal in his case as per Order No. C/100/91-B2, dated 25th March, 1991 and, therefore, he submits that the ratio of the said judgment of the Tribunal is required to be applied to the present case.
He also submitted that the refiner, which has been imported by the appellants is a part of the paper making machine which specifically exempted auxiliary duty in the said Notification. He submitted that the item refiner is used in paper making machine before the pulp is fed in the machine for making a paper. The item defibrates the pulp and increases the freeness of the pulp. Therefore, he submitted that all the authorities have failed to appreciate the submissions made by the appellants including the technical details furnished by them. He submitted that the Tribunal's judgment cannot be differed.
5. The Learned DR submitted that the imported item refiner is not used as a part of paper making machine but the same is used for refining the pulp, which is an independent process done by a different machine then by a paper making machine. The pulp making and refining of the pulp are independent processes and not carried out by a paper making machine.
Therefore, the lower authorities had rightly rejected the claim of the importer.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the order of the Tribunal referred to before us.
7. The learned DR submitted that the Tribunal's order requires to be reviewed in view of the fact that the refiner is not a part of a paper making machine as the process of a refining the pulp is part of the activity of paper making machine.
8. We observe that the Bench has to follow the judgments of the Tribunal, unless a differing judgment is brought to our notice for consideration for referring the matter to a larger bench. In this case there is no judgment on the point and the Revenue has also not preferred appeal before the Apex Court. Therefore, we have to respectfully follow the Tribunal's judgment in the appellant's own case rendered in the case of Seshashayee Paper & Boards Ltd. v. Collector of Customs. The item imported was refiner plates, which has been held to be entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 62/83-Cus., dated 1-3-1983 which at Serial No. 15 mentions "Paper making Machinery and component parts thereof. The Tribunal's finding at para 3 of the order is noted herein below :- "3. We have heard both the sides and have looked into the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present matter there is no dispute as to the classification of disputed refiner plates under Heading 84.31 of the C.T.A. We have looked into Notification No. 52/83-Cus., dated 1st March, 1983, at Srl. No. 15 of the said notification describes "Paper Making Machinery and component parts thereof. In Column No. 2 of the said notification heading has been mentioned 84.31. Pulp is input for the manufacture of paper. The benefit of the notification is to be extended for Paper Making Machinery and component parts thereof. We are satisfied that the part imported is a part for the Paper Making Machinery as the paper cannot be manufactured without pulp. In view of our observation we hold that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 62/83-Cus., dated 1-3-1983. We set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal . Revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order. The appeal is allowed." 9. The Tribunal has held that pulp is input for the manufacture of paper. In that view, the Tribunal granted the benefit for spare refiner plates, the item imported is a refiner and applying the same it has been held as part of paper making machinery. Further, we notice that the appellants had placed detail facts, including a list of calculation of degree of freeness to be achieved, before feeding up the pulp to the paper making machine; in their written submissions, before the Collector. The Learned Collector had not adverted to these submissions and has also not given any findings on the same. As can be seen from the said submissions, it is seen that the pulp is refined to the corresponding freeness that has to be maintained for the quality of the paper being made on the machine. After such a process of refining the paper is immediately fed to the paper machine. The paper machine is a machine converting pulp slury into a paper shed by removing the total water out of slury. Therefore, the Tribunal's finding in respect of the item refiner plates, which has been considered as a part of the paper making machine, is required to be applied in this case.
10. Applying the ratio of the Tribunal's judgment, the appeal of the appellant is allowed.