Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Hind High Vacuum Co. Pvt. Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....offered for sale as ready assembled units but are meant primarily for research as special equipments. we also note observations of the collector (appeals) that department itself held that these very goods attract classification under tariff item 68. tariff item 84.19 of the present tariff, under which the goods are being assessed, covers machinery, plant or laboratory equipments whether or not electrically heated for the treatment of the materials by process involving changed temperature, heating, etc. the fact that these goods are at present being assessed under this tariff item, clearly goes to prove that these are not refrigerators as understood in the market but special equipments.7. in view of this, we do not find any merit in the appeal. we, therefore, reject the revenue appeal and uphold the impugned order.

Judgment:

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 146/86-B, dated 19-11-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).

The issue that falls for determination is whether "Lyophiliser" is classifiable under the then Tariff Item 29A as refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances or under Tariff Item 68 erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.

2. Arguing for the Revenue, ld. D.R. submits that basically it performs the function of refrigerating, and therefore, it ought to have been held classifiable under Tariff Item 29A. He, however, conceeds that today these items are being assessed under 8419.00 of the present tariff and Collector has accepted this as correct tariff item,. He also concedes that Chandigarh Collectorate did issue a trade notice to which a reference has been made by Collector (Appeals), indicating classification of this very item "lyophiliser" under Tariff Item 68.

4. We have heard ld. D.R. and perused the records of the case. The literature placed in the appeal papers clearly points out that the impugned goods are not refrigerators or refrigerating appliances within the meaning of the then T.I. 29A. The relevant part of literature is extracted below :- "HINDHIVAC Freeze Drier Model LF-3 is a compact, reliable and versatile unit for research and small batch production with wide variety of inter-changeable accessories at low cost, developed after intense research. Facilities like pre-freezing bulk drying with or without heat racks are a few suplementary features. Accessories include vertical and horizontal manifolds, secondary drier, nipple manifold, drier for air admittance, heater racks, etc." "Refrigerators and other refrigerating appliances which are ordinarily sold or offered for sale as ready assembled units, such as ice makers, bottle coolers, display cabinets and water coolers." 5. In order to attract classification under this item, goods must be refrigerators and other refrigerating appliances which are ordinarily sold or offered for sale as ready assembled units such as ice makers, bottle coolers, display cabinets and water coolers. The impugned goods on the other hand are compact units for research.

6. The literature extracted earlier would clearly point out that the impugned goods are not refrigerators offered for sale as ready assembled units but are meant primarily for research as special equipments. We also note observations of the Collector (Appeals) that Department itself held that these very goods attract classification under Tariff Item 68. Tariff Item 84.19 of the present tariff, under which the goods are being assessed, covers machinery, plant or laboratory equipments whether or not electrically heated for the treatment of the materials by process involving changed temperature, heating, etc. The fact that these goods are at present being assessed under this Tariff Item, clearly goes to prove that these are not refrigerators as understood in the market but special equipments.

7. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the appeal. We, therefore, reject the Revenue Appeal and uphold the impugned order.