Tariff interpretation for refrigerating machinery parts: clear sub-entry language prevails over the heading and supports dutiability.

Parts of refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances and machinery were construed as falling within Tariff Item 29A(3) because the sub-item was intended to cover parts of all such appliances and machinery in comprehensive terms. The heading of Item 29A could not narrow the plain language of the specific sub-entry, and the sub-items were treated as independent and mutually exclusive. The fact that the goods were intended for installation in a cold storage plant or ice-factory plant, rather than as parts of a complete ready-assembled unit ordinarily sold or offered for sale, was held irrelevant to levy under the sub-item.

---

---

Issues: Whether parts of refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances and machinery supplied for installation of a cold storage plant or ice-factory plant fall within Tariff Item 29A(3), and whether the heading of Item 29A restricts that sub-item to parts of complete ready-assembled units ordinarily sold or offered for sale.

Analysis: The legislative history and exemption notifications showed that sub-item (3) was intended to be a comprehensive provision covering parts of all sorts of refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances and machinery. The words used in sub-item (3) were plain and wide, and the sub-items in Item 29A were independent and mutually exclusive. The heading could not be used to cut down the clear language of the charging entry, and could be referred to only where ambiguity existed. On that basis, the manufacture or supply of a complete assembled plant was held to be irrelevant to the levy under sub-item (3). The contrary view taken by the Allahabad High Court was overruled.

Conclusion: Parts of refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances and machinery were held to be dutiable under Item 29A(3) even if they were not parts of a complete ready-assembled unit ordinarily sold or offered for sale, and the challenge to the levy failed.

Final Conclusion: The tariff entry was construed broadly, the refund claims were rejected, and the appeal did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the language of a taxing entry is clear and comprehensive, the heading cannot control or narrow the plain scope of a specific sub-entry, and each sub-entry must be applied according to its own terms.

---