TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (7) TMI 255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respondents as 'Foam cutting machine'. The original authority has assessed it under Tariff Heading 84.59(1) as a machine having an individual function not elsewhere specified. The respondents herein, however, have claimed the assessment under Tariff Heading 84.59(2) of CTA 1975 which claim has been upheld in the order-in appeal. 2. It is the contention of the respondents that the imported machine manufactures commodities inasmuch as by cutting the foam blocks, the imported machine was making those blocks marketable. By the process of cutting these foam blocks, foam mattresses and foam cushions as such were being manufactured. Without the operation of this machine on the foam blocks such blocks would be uneven on surface and shape a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Relying on this certificate contention of the learned SDR was that the respondent herein was manufacturing only polyurethane foam and it cannot be said that it was manufacturing polyurethane foam products. Cutting of the foam blocks by itself would not produce a different commodity. Even after cutting the polyurethane foam remains nothing but the foam itself. For this proposition he relied upon Tribunal's order reported in 1983 ECR 760D in the case of M/s. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta. In that case hot mill blocker and ancillary equipment was not found to be classifiable under Tariff heading 84.59(2) on the ground that "the blocker is not designed for the production of any commodity, nor is it a machinery for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....goods as declared at the time of clearance which has been described as foam cutting. Its further use cannot be looked into by the Customs authorities for classification. 5. Appearing for the respondent Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate has submitted that only one ground of appeal has been taken in the appeal memorandum filed by the Collector namely that the machine in question only performs an act of cutting the foam blocks which have already come into existence. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned SDR on the registration certificate of the Directorate of Small Scale Industries is uncalled for at the stage of hearing. Nevertheless, he pointed out that this certificate does not prove that the respondents were preclud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n defined by a series of judgments of Supreme Court including the one mentioned supra as something which ordinarily comes to the market for being bought and sold. There is no doubt that the various products manufactured by the machine such as sheets, carpet underlays, mattresses etc. are well-known marketable commodities as upheld by the learned Collector (Appeals) and as is evident from Tariff Entry 15A(3), (4) of the Central Excise Tariff read with Notification No. 69/71 dated 29-5-1971. Some specified articles of polyurethane foam falling under sub-item (4) of Item 15A of CET have been subjected to a higher rate of duty than foam blocks falling under sub-item (3) of Item 15A. According to him, cutting has also been held to be a process o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for production of a commodity. Various foam products such as sheets, carpet underlays, mattresses, etc. mentioned in the order-in-appeal before us are undoubtedly the products produced by this machine. No evidence to the contrary that these products are nothing but foam and are not known as such in the market has been produced by the department. On the contrary, the learned Advocate for the respondents has relied upon the Central Excise Tariff for treating these products as clearly marketable products inasmuch as they have been subjected to different rate of duty. It is common knowledge that the products mentioned in the order-in-appeal are marketable products and from that angle there is no doubt that the machine in question is one desig....