Alok Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the appellants herein imported goods declared as moulds and dies vide bill of entry dated 26-12-1995. the goods were assessed as dies under customs tariff heading 8477.90 and duty was charged at the rate of 25% + 15%. the importers claimed reassessment and consequential refund of duty paid on the ground that the goods were classifiable as moulds under customs tariff heading 8480.10 and hence chargeable to duty at the rate of 25% + 10%. the reassessment claim has been rejected on the ground that the goods are parts of extruder and hence correctly classifiable under heading 8477.90.2. the appellants have asked for a decision on merits; hence we have gone through the written submissions, heard the learned dr and perused the records.3. the goods in question are used in plastic extruder. during the process of manufacture, the imported plastic gel releases through an extruder head and passes through the die and thus the plain surface plastic pipe is extruded from the extruder. the function of the goods in question, therefore, is to pass the plastic pipe through dies to perform corrugation by the mould. the commissioner (appeals) has observed that mould has been defined as a cavity which imparts its form to a fluid or to a malleable substance. since the goods do not have a cavity to hold the material and since hsn explanatory. notes to heading 84.80 clearly show that the essential function of mould is to retain the material in the pre-determined shape while it sets, the goods in question which do not perform this functions clearly do not qualify as moulds. therefore, the impugned order is correct and cannot be faulted.we accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal

Judgment:
1. The appellants herein imported goods declared as moulds and dies vide bill of entry dated 26-12-1995. the goods were assessed as dies under Customs Tariff Heading 8477.90 and duty was charged at the rate of 25% + 15%. The importers claimed reassessment and consequential refund of duty paid on the ground that the goods were classifiable as moulds under Customs Tariff Heading 8480.10 and hence chargeable to duty at the rate of 25% + 10%. The reassessment claim has been rejected on the ground that the goods are parts of extruder and hence correctly classifiable under heading 8477.90.

2. The appellants have asked for a decision on merits; hence we have gone through the written submissions, heard the learned DR and perused the records.

3. The goods in question are used in plastic extruder. During the process of manufacture, the imported plastic gel releases through an extruder head and passes through the die and thus the plain surface plastic pipe is extruded from the extruder. The function of the goods in question, therefore, is to pass the plastic pipe through dies to perform corrugation by the mould. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that mould has been defined as a cavity which imparts its form to a fluid or to a malleable substance. Since the goods do not have a cavity to hold the material and since HSN Explanatory. Notes to heading 84.80 clearly show that the essential function of mould is to retain the material in the pre-determined shape while it sets, the goods in question which do not perform this functions clearly do not qualify as moulds. Therefore, the impugned order is correct and cannot be faulted.

We accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal