Primary function test governs classification of raw material feeding systems, while bought-out accessories need manufacture before excise duty can apply.

Raw material feeding systems that regulate flow at a predetermined rate, but do not weigh goods or indicate their weight, are not treated as weighing machinery under Tariff Heading 84.23; their classification depends on primary function, common parlance and trade understanding, with expert evidence supporting treatment as machines having individual functions under Heading 84.79. Bought-out items and optional components sold separately and cleared in the same condition as purchased are not includible in assessable value merely because they are used with the main equipment, especially where no manufacturing activity is undertaken on them. The note also records that duty demands and penalties lacked a legal basis on these facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the electronic solid flow feeder, electronic solid flow meter and allied raw material feeding systems were classifiable as weighing machinery under Tariff Heading 84.23 or as machines having individual functions under Tariff Heading 84.79; and (ii) whether the value of bought-out items and optional components was liable to be included in the assessable value or subjected to duty as part of the machinery.

Issue (i): Whether the electronic solid flow feeder, electronic solid flow meter and allied raw material feeding systems were classifiable as weighing machinery under Tariff Heading 84.23 or as machines having individual functions under Tariff Heading 84.79.

Analysis: The equipment was found to be used for regulated feeding of raw materials into manufacturing machinery at a predetermined flow rate. Its performance and accuracy were related to rate of flow and not to weighment, and it did not indicate the weight of materials placed on it. The expert evidence also showed that the equipment was neither a true gravimetric device nor a volumetric device, and therefore not a weighing machine. On common parlance, trade understanding and primary function, the goods were bought and sold as raw material handling and feeding equipment, not as weighing machinery.

Conclusion: The classification under Tariff Heading 84.23 was rejected and the goods were not liable to be classified as weighing machinery; the assessee's classification claim was accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether the value of bought-out items and optional components was liable to be included in the assessable value or subjected to duty as part of the machinery.

Analysis: The items such as feed hoppers, vibrating feeders and other bought-out goods were found to be separate and independent items, many of them sold as spares or optional accessories under permission granted by the department. Since no manufacturing activity was carried out on those goods by the assessee and they were cleared in the same condition as purchased, excise duty could not be demanded merely because they were used with or alongside the main equipment. Once the main machinery was held not classifiable under Heading 84.23, the foundation for treating these items as parts of weighing machinery also failed.

Conclusion: The demand of duty on bought-out items and the inclusion of their value in the assessable value was unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The duty demands and penalties were held to be without legal basis, and the appeals succeeded in full.

Ratio Decidendi: For central excise classification, the decisive test is the primary function and common parlance identity of the goods; equipment that merely regulates the flow of raw materials and does not weigh goods cannot be treated as weighing machinery, and duty cannot be levied on bought-out items absent manufacture by the assessee.

---