Integrated packing line exemption applies where slicing is incidental to packaging; spare parts assessment needs fresh reconsideration.

A bread slicer imported with a bagger and bag-tyer as part of a synchronised packing line was treated as an integrated packaging unit, because slicing was incidental to packaging and commercial presentation; exemption under the relevant customs notification was therefore available, even though the individual machines could operate separately. The claim for lower assessment of spare parts required fresh consideration because it had not been properly examined by the authorities, so the matter was remanded for a reasoned speaking order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported bread slicer, when imported along with bagger and bag-tyer as part of a synchronised bread-packing line, was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 125/86-Cus. dated 17-2-1986; (ii) whether the claim relating to lower assessment of spare parts required reconsideration.

Issue (i): Whether the imported bread slicer, when imported along with bagger and bag-tyer as part of a synchronised bread-packing line, was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 125/86-Cus. dated 17-2-1986.

Analysis: The relevant notification covered aseptic packaging machinery and ancillary processes connected with packaging. The machine set was found to operate as a synchronised whole in which slicing, bagging and tying were performed in one composite commercial operation. The slicing function was treated as incidental to the packing process and as part of an integrated unit designed for commercial presentation of bread. The fact that the individual machines could function independently did not defeat exemption, because the decisive consideration was the overall functioning of the combined equipment in the packaging line.

Conclusion: The exemption under Notification No. 125/86-Cus. dated 17-2-1986 was available to the bread slicer as part of the integrated packing machinery, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim relating to lower assessment of spare parts required reconsideration.

Analysis: The claim for lower assessment of spare parts had not been properly considered by the original or appellate authorities, and the record showed that the claim was said to have been made under protest. The matter therefore required fresh examination and a reasoned order on the claim.

Conclusion: The claim relating to spare parts was remanded for reconsideration and speaking order.

Final Conclusion: The exemption dispute was decided in favour of the appellant, while the ancillary assessment claim was sent back for fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: For exemption purposes, a machine used in a synchronised packing line is to be assessed as an integrated unit where the additional function is incidental to packaging and serves commercial presentation, even if individual components can operate separately.

---