1996 (10) TMI 243 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upheld Classification of Machinery; Emphasized Individual Assessment

The tribunal upheld the authorities' classification of Printing and Tubing machines under Heading 84.59(1) and Auto Sewing Line under Heading 84.59(2). ... Classification - Commodity’ Issues:Classification of Printing and Tubing machines and Auto Sewing Line under Heading 84.59(2) or Heading 84.59(1).Detailed Analysis:1. Issue of Classification: The appeal concerns the classification of a set of Printing and Tubing machines and Auto Sewing Line under Heading 84.59(2) or Heading 84.59(1). The Printing and Tubing machines were classified under Heading 84.59(1) as 'not elsewhere specified,' while the Auto Sewing Line was classified under Heading 84.59(2) without dispute.2. Contentions of the Appellant: The appellant argued that both machines together constitute a set for the manufacture of cement bags. The Printing Tubing machine produces cut tubes, which are further processed by the second machine for stitching, resulting in the final product. The appellant emphasized that the concept of 'ready to use' is not a requirement in Heading 84.59(2) and that the machines should be classified together under the same heading.3. Legal Precedents: The appellant cited legal precedents to support their argument, including cases where machines used for intermediate stages of production were classified under Heading 84.59(2) for producing a commodity. However, the authorities emphasized the need to consider whether the end product is a 'ready-to-use commodity' in determining the classification.4. Assessment by Authorities: The authorities found that the Printing Tubing machine, though producing an intermediate product, does not create a finished commodity. They argued that the machines should be assessed individually as they are separate and not described as part of a complete system. The end product, cement bags, is produced by the Auto Sewing Line, which can be used without further processing.5. Decision: The tribunal upheld the authorities' classification, emphasizing that the machines are independent with separate functions and controls. The tribunal interpreted 'commodity' in Heading 84.59(2) to mean a 'ready-to-use commodity,' distinguishing it from goods in general. The appellant's argument that the machines should be assessed as a complete unit was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed based on the machines' individual functions and the interpretation of the relevant heading.6. Conclusion: The judgment clarifies the classification criteria under Heading 84.59(2) and Heading 84.59(1) based on the production of 'ready-to-use commodities.' It highlights the importance of considering the end product and individual functions of machines in determining their classification, ultimately upholding the authorities' decision in this case.