SPACO CARBURETTORS (INDIA) LTD. versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 37 · Decided: 24-02-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

). 
SPACO CARBURETIORS (INDIA) LTD. 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY 
FEBRUARY 24, 1988 
A 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTI, JJ.) 
B 
Customs Tariff Act, 1975: First Schedule Entry 84.45/48 and 
Entry 84.59-'Special purpose complex machine'-'Relevant entry-
Determination of-Customs duty-Levy of. 
Customs Act, 1962: Section 130E-Customs duty-Levy of-
'Special purpose complex machine'. 
Words and Phrases: 'Machine tool'-Meaning of. 
c 
The· appellant-firm imported 
!'special purpose 
complex 
machine" and claime!l that it was classifiable under item 84.45/48 of 
D 
the tariff schedule and duty was payable at the rate of 40 per cent. 
The Assistant Collector took the view that the imported machine 
was not manufacturing carburettors and was discharging au individual 
,,_.,/. 
function of plugging holes in the carburettor body with the help of lead 
shots, and that the appropriate entry was 84.59( l) of the Customs 
E 
Tariff and duty was payable at the rate of 60 per cent. 
The . appellant challenged the aforesaid order hy preferring an 
appeal to the Collector (Appeals) who took the view that the imported 
machine by plugging holes on the carburettor body with the help of lead 
shots was clearly a machine which was fully conforming to the descrip-
F 
lion of a machine for treating metals inasmuch as it was treating the 
carburettor body and preparing it for being rivetted, and therefore it 
was conforming to the description of a machine tool as given under 
heading 84.45/48 of the Customs Tariff, and allowed the appeal. 
On further appeal, the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appel-
G 
late Tribunal came to the conclusion that the function of the imported 
machine. was to plug the holes of carburettor body, that none of its 
functions can he considered to be treating metal within the meaning of 
sub-heading (2) of Tariff Heading 84.59, that classification as machine 
tool under Tariff Heading 84.45/48 has to be ruled out, and that the 
machine does not fall under any of the Heading of Chapier 84 of the 
H 
37 
38 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1988) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Tariff Schedule. It accordingly reversed the appellate decision of the 
Collector of Customs (Appeals). 
In the appeal under section l3G-E of the Customs Act, 1962 to this 
Court on the question: whether the imported "special purpose complex 
machine" has to be charged to customs duty under item 84.59(1) as 
B 
claimed by the Revenue or under 84.45/48 of the tariff schedule as 
maintained by the appellant. 
,.,-{ 
c 
Allowing the Appeal, 
HELD: l. Entry 84.59 of Schedule I is a residuary one and in-
disputably if any other entry applies, application of this entry is ruled 
out. l40F-G) 
2. Machine tools in general remain classified under entry 84.45 
even if specialised for a particular industry Machine tools include 
slotting machines, drilling and boring machines, tapping machines, 
D 
reaming machines and rivetting machines. l4ID~E) 
E 
Tool Engineers Handbook-Mc Graw Hills: 
Mc Graw Hill-Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms 
referred to. 
3. The machine in the instant case, is indeed a multi-purpose one 
and keeping its performance in view, the machine has to be held as· a 
"machine tool working on metal" and should legitimately find its way 
into entry 84.45/48. Once it is so identified, it does not get into the 
residuary entry 84.59. The Collector has reached the correct conclu-
F 
sion. The order of the Tribunal is vacated and that of the Collector is 
restored. l4IF-G) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 571 
of 1987. 
G 
From the Order dated 5.12.1986 of the Customs Excise and Gold 
(Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. 424/86-B-2. 
T.R. Andhyarujina, F.H.J. Talyarkhan, Shri Narain, R.K. 
Krishnamurthi and Sandeep Narain for the Appellants. 
H 
A.K. Ganguli, P. Parmeswaran and Ms. Radha Rangaswamy for 
the Respondents. 
~· 
-i-
\ 
). 
SPACO (I) LTD. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS !MISRA, J.J 
39 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal under section 13(}-E of 
the Customs Act is directed against the decision of the Customs, 
Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, by which the 
Tribunal . has reversed the appellate decision of the Collector of 
Customs (Appeals), Bombay. 
The short point involves in this appeal is as to whether the 
imported "special purpose complex machine" has to be charged to 
customs duty under item 89.59(1) as claimed by the Revenue or under 
84.45/
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.