LexM/S NIRULAS CORNER HOUSE PVT. LTD. versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- MIS NIRULAS CORNER HOUSE PVT. LTD. A v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY APRIL 28, 1999 [A.P. MISRA AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] B Customs Tariff Act, 1975-Sections 2 and 3 Headings 84.15, 84.19, 84.26, 84.30 (I) & 84.59(2) Applicability of-Jn classification of Can Filler, Fruit Feeder and Ripple Machine-These machines imported under a single order together with continuous ice cream freezer-Held, these machines were C independent and not accessories as claimed by the appel/ant-,-Hence, rightly classified under Heading 84.19 and 84.30(1) and not under Heading 84.15 and liable to CVD under Excise Tariff Item 29-A(J)-Further, continuous ice cream freezer rightly classified under Heading 84. 15-Excise-Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, Items 29-A(J) and 68. D Appellant had imported under one single order in its single consignment of plant and machinery namely, "continuous ice cream freezer and alleged accessories such as Electronic Doser, Can Filler, Fruit Feeder and Ripple Machine". According to the appellant, the main function of the machines imported was to make ice cream. The ice freezer was said to be refrigerating equipment classified as such under heading 84.15(1) of the Customs Tariff Act. None of the aforesaid so-called accessories could function independently. Being refrigerating machinery the imported machines were claimed to be E not dutiable and that no countervailing duty under Tariff No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff was attracted, the appellant filed refund claim before F the Customs Department. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim of the appellant. The appeal preferred before the Collector (Appeals) and Appellate Tribunal were also rejected. Hence this appeal. It was contended by the appellant that the said articles were not independent machines but were accessories; if these machines could not be G classified under 84.15(1) then they could be classified under Heading 84.26 or 84.59(2). Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. It is not disputed that the appellant had imported machines H 919 920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 2 S.C.R. A and spare parts for the purposes of making ice cream. It is also not denied that ice cream freezer is a refrigerati~g equipment classified under heading 84.15. There is no dispute regarding the payment of duty and CVD in respect of continuous ice cream freezer. The dispute relates to the payment of the duty with respect to the Can Filler, Fruit Feeder and Ripple Machine. Sub B item (I) of Tariff Item No. 29-A deals with refrigerating and Air Conditioning appliances and machinery which provides that refrigerator and other refrigerating appliances shall be such appliances which are ordinarily sold or offered for sale as ready assembled units such as ice makers, bottle coolers, display cabinets and water coolers. Continuous ice cream freezer C was, therefore, rightly assessed under the aforesaid entry. (921-H; 922-A-B] 1.2. A perusal of the Xerox copies of the literature relating to Can Filler, Fruit Feeder and Ripple Machine, it is seen that all such machines are independent and not accessories. The mere fact that the so-called D machines can be connected with freezers would not change their character to being independent machines. The aforesaid machines are intended only to give better production of the ice cream. It cannot be said but for those machines freezer cannot be utilised for the purpose of the manufactures of the cream. The purpose of the aforesaid machines is to facilitate in filling E the tubes with ice cream or one or two-three flavours, add fruit syrups, chocolate etc. to produce multi flavoured product. (923-D-E] Collector of Customs v. Enfield India Ltd., (1991) 51 ELT 172 SC, distinguished. F Joy Ice Cream, Bombay v. Union of India, (1989) 39 ELT 521, distinguished. 1.3. The statutory authorities under the Customs Tariffs Act and the Tribunal, are justified, holding that the Can Filler, Fruit Feeder and Ribble Machine are independent machines and not accessories as claimed by the G appellant. [923-H; 924-AJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 138of1986. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.5.85 of the Central Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A. No. C.D. (SB) H A.No. 695/83-B in order No. 390of1985-B. ;- -- NIRULAS CORNER HOUSE PVT. LTD. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [SETHI, J] 921 Sajan Nandini, Ms. Andini and Ms. Rajni Natarajan for the M/
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.