Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Anamed Instruments P. Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals).4. brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of computing integrators and claimed classification under heading 9033.90 of the central excise tariff. show cause notice was issued to the respondents for classifying the goods, in question, under heading 8471.00 of the central excise tariff. the adjudicating authority confirmed the classification. appellants filed the appeal and the commissioner (appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for re-determining the issue.5. the adjudicating authority again confirmed the classification of the goods under heading 8471.00 of central excise tariff. the respondents filed an appeal and the commissioner (appeals) allowed the appeal by classifying the goods, in question, under heading 9033.00 of the central excise tariff.6. the contention of the revenue is that the commissioner (appeals), in the impugned order, held that the goods, in question, are not being freely programmed and are not capable to perform arithmetical computations and, therefore, are not classifiable under heading 8471.00 of central excise tariff. revenue relied upon the product literature produced by the respondents to show that the goods, in question, can perform the above-mentioned functions also.8. heading 8471.00 of central excise tariff covers automatic data processing machines and as per chapter note 5(a) of the chapter 84, automatic data processing machines means :- "(1) storing the processing program or programs and at least the data immediately necessary for the execution of the program; (2) being freely programmed in accordance with the requirements of the user; (4) executing without human intervention, a processing program which requires them to modify their execution by logical decision during the processing run." 9. the commissioner (appeals) in the impugned order held that the goods, manufactured by the respondents, are not being freely programmed and they are not performing arithmetical computations. the product literature of the goods in question, shows that time programmable functions of the machines contribute to a high degree of flexibility and also permit a wide range of operating parameters, which can be programmed to change during the analysis.10. the machines, in question, are preprogrammed to perform post-run data reduction calculations including area %, normalisation, internal standard and external standard with automatic calibration and recalibration.11. from the above product literature, it is clear that the goods, in question, are programmable and can also perform arithmetical computations. therefore, the finding of the commissioner (appeals) that the impugned goods, in question, are not capable to perform above-mentioned functions, is not sustainable, hence set aside.12. the respondents claimed the classification under heading 9033.00 of central excise tariff which covers parts and accessories for machines, instruments or apparatus of chapter 90 and chapter 90 will cover optical, photographic, cinematographic. the integrities cannot be said to be measuring instrument or part or accessory of measuring instrument.13. as discussed above, as the goods in question specifically, are covered under heading 8471.00 of central excise tariff, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. the cross-objection also is disposed of as indicated above.

Judgment:
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of computing integrators and claimed classification under Heading 9033.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. Show cause notice was issued to the respondents for classifying the goods, in question, under Heading 8471.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. The adjudicating authority confirmed the classification. Appellants filed the appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for re-determining the issue.

5. The adjudicating authority again confirmed the classification of the goods under Heading 8471.00 of Central Excise Tariff. The respondents filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal by classifying the goods, in question, under Heading 9033.00 of the Central Excise Tariff.

6. The contention of the Revenue is that the Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, held that the goods, in question, are not being freely programmed and are not capable to perform arithmetical computations and, therefore, are not classifiable under Heading 8471.00 of Central Excise Tariff. Revenue relied upon the product literature produced by the respondents to show that the goods, in question, can perform the above-mentioned functions also.

8. Heading 8471.00 of Central Excise Tariff covers automatic data processing machines and as per Chapter Note 5(a) of the Chapter 84, automatic data processing machines means :- "(1) storing the processing program or programs and at least the data immediately necessary for the execution of the program; (2) being freely programmed in accordance with the requirements of the user; (4) executing without human intervention, a processing program which requires them to modify their execution by logical decision during the processing run." 9. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the goods, manufactured by the respondents, are not being freely programmed and they are not performing arithmetical computations. The product literature of the goods in question, shows that time programmable functions of the machines contribute to a high degree of flexibility and also permit a wide range of operating parameters, which can be programmed to change during the analysis.

10. The machines, in question, are preprogrammed to perform post-run data reduction calculations including area %, normalisation, internal standard and external standard with automatic calibration and recalibration.

11. From the above product literature, it is clear that the goods, in question, are programmable and can also perform arithmetical computations. Therefore, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the impugned goods, in question, are not capable to perform above-mentioned functions, is not sustainable, hence set aside.

12. The respondents claimed the classification under Heading 9033.00 of Central Excise Tariff which covers parts and accessories for machines, instruments or apparatus of Chapter 90 and Chapter 90 will cover optical, photographic, cinematographic. The integrities cannot be said to be measuring instrument or part or accessory of measuring instrument.

13. As discussed above, as the goods in question specifically, are covered under Heading 8471.00 of Central Excise Tariff, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The cross-objection also is disposed of as indicated above.