Super House Limited Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. in this appeal filed by m/s. super house ltd. the matter relates to the eligibility of the machine imported -model el 1250, (sic) to the benefit of exemption under notification no. 42-cus, dated 1-3-1978 as amended which provided exemption and concessional rate of duty among others to hydraulic automatic plating ironing machine. under that exemption notification various items as specified in the table annexed to that notification and which were designed for use in the leather processing industries or leather finishing industries or leather goods manufacturing industries or leather footwear manufacturing industries or leather articles manufacturing industries imported were eligible for the concessional rate of customs duty. the appellants imported the machine which they described in their bill of entry as hydraulic/automatic plating indus try .machine stcm (sycom) model pl 1250. the goods were examined by the customs and it was found that the model no. pl 1250 as declared was correct but the model was described to be manual. the catalogue produced by the importers was referred to by the examining officer who recorded that the item was not covered by notification no. 42-cus. the matter was adjudicated and on appeal, the collector of customs (appeals), bombay extensively dealt with the arguments adduced by the appellants and noted that the base plate in the machine was to be pulled out manually to lead the leather components. he also took note of the fact that there was another model pl 1251 where even this operation was done through the extra motor fitted therein. he came to the conclusion that the goods imported were not eligible for the benefit of notification no. 42-cus., dated 1-3-1978 as amended.2. we have heard shri l.p. asthana, advocate for the appellants and shri a.k. agarwal, sdr for the respondent revenue.3. the appellate authority has summerised the contention of the appellant in para 4 of his order as under : "4. appellants have contended that the hydraulic pressure is regulable thermostat is regulable, the dwell time is adjustable by a timer. the operation is therefore automatic. the base plate is pulled out manually to lead the leather components in model pl-1250 whereas this plate comes out by an extra motor fitted on the model pl-1251." 4. s. no. 19 of the table annexed to notification no. 42-cus., dated 1-3-1978 as amended reads as under : 5. as the machine imported on examination was found to be manually operated insofar as the plating is concerned, we consider that the contention that the hydraulic pressure is regulable or thermostat is regulable, or the dwell time is adjustable by a timer will not make the machine as automatic plating ironing machine.6. ld. advocate had referred to the tribunal's decision in the case of k. mohan and co. v. cc, madras reported in 1984 (15) e.l.t. 430 (tribunal) where the tribunal had observed that the contention that the machines under consideration in that case were not automatic cloth cutting machine because a certain amount of manual effort was required in cutting the garments to appropriate patterns was a mere fallacy as the notification contemplated 'automatic' in respect of processing of cutting of cloth. in the exemption notification before us the 'automatic' refers to the plating, ironing. as we find out the base plate was to be pulled manually in the machine in question, the essential characteristic of automatic plating is missing from the machine in question. in fact the other model of the same manufacturer model no. pl 1251 had automatic operation even for the plating as submitted by the appellants.7. in view of the admitted position that in the machine in question, the plating operation was manual, we consider that it was not covered by the description hydraulic automatic plating ironing machine which were eligible for concessional rate of customs duty under the relevant exemption notification. no material has been placed before us for justifying any interference within the view taken by the collector of customs (appeals), bombay and after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the appellate authority. there is no merit in the appeal and the same is rejected.

Judgment:
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Super House Ltd. the matter relates to the eligibility of the machine imported -model EL 1250, (sic) to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 42-Cus, dated 1-3-1978 as amended which provided exemption and concessional rate of duty among others to Hydraulic Automatic Plating Ironing Machine. Under that exemption notification various items as specified in the table annexed to that notification and which were designed for use in the leather processing industries or leather finishing industries or leather goods manufacturing industries or leather footwear manufacturing industries or leather articles manufacturing industries imported were eligible for the concessional rate of Customs duty. The appellants imported the machine which they described in their bill of entry as Hydraulic/Automatic Plating Indus try .Machine STCM (Sycom) Model PL 1250. The goods were examined by the Customs and it was found that the Model No. PL 1250 as declared was correct but the model was described to be manual. The catalogue produced by the importers was referred to by the Examining Officer who recorded that the item was not covered by Notification No. 42-Cus. The matter was adjudicated and on appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay extensively dealt with the arguments adduced by the appellants and noted that the base plate in the machine was to be pulled out manually to lead the leather components. He also took note of the fact that there was another Model PL 1251 where even this operation was done through the extra motor fitted therein. He came to the conclusion that the goods imported were not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 42-Cus., dated 1-3-1978 as amended.

2. We have heard Shri L.P. Asthana, Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR for the respondent Revenue.

3. The appellate authority has summerised the contention of the appellant in Para 4 of his order as under : "4. Appellants have contended that the Hydraulic pressure is regulable thermostat is regulable, the dwell time is adjustable by a timer. The operation is therefore automatic. The base plate is pulled out manually to lead the leather components in model PL-1250 whereas this plate comes out by an extra motor fitted on the model PL-1251." 4. S. No. 19 of the table annexed to Notification No. 42-Cus., dated 1-3-1978 as amended reads as under : 5. As the machine imported on examination was found to be manually operated insofar as the plating is concerned, we consider that the contention that the Hydraulic pressure is regulable or thermostat is regulable, or the dwell time is adjustable by a timer will not make the machine as automatic plating ironing machine.

6. Ld. Advocate had referred to the Tribunal's decision in the case of K. Mohan and Co. v. CC, Madras reported in 1984 (15) E.L.T. 430 (Tribunal) where the Tribunal had observed that the contention that the machines under consideration in that case were not automatic cloth cutting machine because a certain amount of manual effort was required in cutting the garments to appropriate patterns was a mere fallacy as the notification contemplated 'automatic' in respect of processing of cutting of cloth. In the exemption notification before us the 'automatic' refers to the plating, ironing. As we find out the base plate was to be pulled manually in the machine in question, the essential characteristic of automatic plating is missing from the machine in question. In fact the other model of the same manufacturer Model No. PL 1251 had automatic operation even for the plating as submitted by the appellants.

7. In view of the admitted position that in the machine in question, the plating operation was manual, we consider that it was not covered by the description hydraulic automatic plating ironing machine which were eligible for concessional rate of Customs duty under the relevant exemption notification. No material has been placed before us for justifying any interference within the view taken by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay and after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the appellate authority. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is rejected.