1997 (5) TMI 222 - AT - Customs

Tribunal overturns classification decision, grants relief to appellants under Notification No. 40/78

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants regarding the classification of the imported machine under Notification No. 40/78. The Tribunal ... Grinding machine Issues: Classification of imported machine under Notification No. 40/78.The judgment involves an appeal against an order regarding the classification of an imported Automatic antifriction machine under Heading 8461.90 or CTH 8460.90 read with Notification No. 40/78. The appellants initially claimed assessment under Heading 8461.90 but later sought assessment under CTH 8460.90 based on the notification. The dispute arose as the benefit of the Notification was denied on the grounds that the machine did not qualify as an automatic cycle internal grinder for grinding internal groove or track bearing outer races.The appellants argued that the machine was an Automatic antifriction bearing internal plunge grinding machine, which qualified as an automatic cycle grinder for grinding internal grooves or components as per the catalogue description. They contended that the machine could grind grooves of various shapes, including cylindrical, radial, or special shapes, making it an internal plunge groove grinding machine. The Collector (Appeals) was criticized for concluding that the machine performed functions beyond grinding, which was not supported by the appellants.On the revenue's side, it was argued that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim, such as literature or supplier's certificate validating the machine's capabilities.The Collector (Appeals) noted discrepancies between the machine's description in the catalogue and the invoice declaration, highlighting that the machine could perform functions beyond grinding cylindrical, radial, or special profiles. The notification in question covered machines exclusively designed for grinding internal grooves or track of bearing outer races, which the appellants' machine exceeded by performing additional functions. The appellants' argument that the machine could grind grooves of various shapes was countered by the fact that the machine imported lacked the necessary dressers for cylindrical or special profiles, strengthening the Collector's decision.Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants. They were granted consequential relief as per the law.