LexNAT STEEL EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD. versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A NAT SIBEL EQUIPMENT PVf. LTD. . v. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE JANUARY 19, 1988 B [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI & S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] c D E Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944: Sections I IA and 35L-Tariff item No. 33C Explanation I and item No. 68-Manufacture of items used in big hospitals hotels and industrial canteens-Domestically operated machines-Classification of-Whether electrical appliance for household purposes-'Similar description'-Jnterpretation of-Abse- nce of suppression of fact in classification-Whether s. I IA applicable. Wordr and Phrases: 'Similar description'-meaning of. The appellant, manufacturer of Hospital and Pharmaceutical Appliances and Heavy Duty Industrial Canteen Equipment, classified certain items like cooking range, deep fat fryer, expresso colTee machine, bread toaster etc., numbering 14, under TarilT Item No. 68 of the Central Excise and Salt Act; 1944. The Assistant Collector held that products 2 to 14 were classifiable under TarilT Item No. 33C, in view of the Explanation thereof, and demanded differential duty for the period of lsU\farch, 1979 to 30th June, 1980. The Collector, on appeal, held that these items were to be clas- sified under Tariff item No. 68 and not under Tariff item 33C •. \ ·-on appeal by the Revenue, the Central Customs Excise and Gold * F (Control) Appellate Tribunal, while noting that the equipment in ques- tion, some of which were electrically operated machines, were used in '-. industrial canteens, five star hotels, big hospitals, etc. held that the " intention of the Legislature was clear from the Explanation to Tariff Item No. 33C;and the items in question could not be classified under Tariff Item No. 68. G Dismissing. the appeal by the manufacturer. HELD: The statute does not contemplate that goods classed 'f under the words of "similar description" shall be in all respects the same. If it did, these words would be unnecessary. These were intended H to embrace goods but not identical with those goods. If the items were 732 A B c 734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R. tion and gas operated), (3) Baking Oven, (4) Deep Fat Fryer, (5) Bain Mafie, (6) Sterilizing Sink, (7) Expresso Coffee Machine, (8) Steam Jacketed Vessel (Steam Operated), (9) Bread Toaster, (10) Bulk Cooker & Fryer, (11) Chappatty Plate/Chappatty Puffer and Chappatty Plate/Puffer, (12) Dish Washing Maclline, (13) Potato Pooler and (14) Masala Grinder." The Assistant Collector held the view that products 2 to 14 were classifiable under Tariff Item No. 33C in view of the Explanation thereof. After giving notice the Assistant Collector demanded diffe- rential duty amounting to Rs.1,91,622.20 for the period J:st of March, 1979 to 30th June, 1980. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand except in respect of Item No. 8, namely, Steam Jacketed Vessel. Being aggrieved from these orders, the appellant filed appeals before the Collector. The Collector accepted the appellant's conten- D tions and came to the conclusion that these were to be classified under Tariff Item No. 68 and not under Tariff Item No. 33C. Tariff Item 33C at the relevant time contained the Explanation-I, which is as follows: E "Explanation-I 'Domestic electrical appliances' means electrical appliances normally used in the household and similar appliances .used in hotels, restaurants, hostels. offices, educational institutions, hospitals, train kitchens. aircraft or ship's pantries, canteens, tailoring establish- -,... ments, laundary shops and hair dressing saloons". . The revenue went up in appeal before the CEGAT. The Tri-~ F bunal noted that the eqnipments in question were used in industrial canteens, Five Star Hotels, big hospitals etc. The nature of the items such as deep fat fryer, Expresso coffee machine, bread toaster, chap- patty plate, etc. were all electrically operated machines. The Tribunal further noted that Tariff Item 33C was in respect of "domestic electri- cal appliances not elsewhere specified". According to the Tribunal the G intention of the legislature in respect of "domestic electrical appli- ances" was clear from the Explanation. It is apparent that the above named items are specially designed for use in big canteens attached to industrial units, big hotels, hospitals etc. where food in bulk quantity for hundreds of people is required to be prepared and served. These required electric power exceeding 230 volts in order to have
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.