TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (5) TMI 145
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on Jig-boring machine on the basis of the machine model 24K400F4 complete with various items as described in the invoice". The Sr. No. 2 of the Customs Notification No. 40/78 reads as : "Tool Room Precision Coordinate Jig Boring Machine with or without C.N.C." The importer relied on DGTD letter No. DT-1/10(1)/88/468, dated 30th October, 1991 and claimed for the benefit of the said Notification on the ground that the ITC licence is through Project & Equipment Corporation, who have accepted that the impugned Boring Machine have functions of face milling, end milling and drilling also. The Learned Assistant Collector has not accepted the importer's plea and has held that the importer has not given sufficient technical evidence to establish that the imported machine cannot perform heavy functions. He has also held that the item in question is not covered by Sr. No. 2 of the said Notification. He has also noted the admission of the importer that the imported machine are not only Precision Room Jig Boring Machine but are capable of performing drilling and milling functions also in addition to boring. 3. The Learned Collector, however, disagreed with the Collector (Appeals)'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ic function of the machine. In terms of the Rules of Interpretation of the tariff, it is the essential character that matters for the purpose of classification and therefore, has held that the lower authority should have found the primary basic function of the machine, for the purpose of determining the classification under the CTA. He has also held that if the basic function of the machine is boring and it is capable of performing a subsidiary function of milling, then it will qualify to be a boring machine only. In engineering parlance it is understood that Boring machine also perform the function of milling with certain adaptations. Even the Explanatory notes speak about Boring machine, performing the subsidiary function of milling. Therefore, the Learned Collector held that it remains a Boring machine only and is classifiable as such. The Learned Collector has referred to the catalogue and has noted the following points therefrom : "DIXI 310 DIXI 330 Horizontal Production Jig borars Field of application If components are to have bores and faces where very high demands are made on dimensional accuracy, surface quality and percies positioning then it is imper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the Notification in question is not with respect to the accuracy of performing one function. The imported machine is capable of performing both boring and milling which are not necessarily subsidiary or ancillary to each other which make the machine ineligible for Notification benefit. 7. M/s. D.C.L. Finance Ltd. : The description of the machine in the Bill of Entry is "STANKO Import (Russia) Model 2431 CF 10 (MCK3M) High Precision Tool Room Coordinate Jig Boring Machine". The Assistant Collector in the impugned order-in-original held that the admitted fact is that the imported machine basically performs precision boring and also performs milling and drilling function and therefore, imported machine cannot be called a boring machine. 8. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order has held that the machine is basically and predominantly a High Precision Tool Room Jig Boring Machine. If it performs other functions those functions are only ancillary, complimentary or incidental to the main function, that is boring. He has held that for example, if the object requiring boring may sometimes require milling operations, that is why instead of taking the product to ot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....based his arguments on mere presumptions that milling and drilling functions are only ancillary or complimentary to the main function that is boring or milling machines are much cheaper than the subject machine performing specialised function. It is also stated that the Collector has not offered any concrete evidence in suppport of his presumptions. It is also stated that the ratio of the judgments relied by the Collector i.e. Blue Star Ltd. does not apply to the facts of the case as the machine therein was capable of performing function of "Brinell-cam-Vickers Hardness Testing Machine" and the Notification entry read "Vickers Hardness Tester". It has been held that since the machine was capable of carrying out only a small range of Brinell Test and therefore, was primarily for Vickers Testing. On the other hand, the subject machine is versatile enough to carry out multiple functions of drilling, Boring and milling. Thus the case cited by the Collector is clearly distinguishable. 10. We have heard the Learned SDR, Shri K.K. Jha for the Revenue and the Learned Advocates, Shri Harbans Singh, Shri P.A.S. Rao and the Learned Consultant, Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan for the respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....talogue itself. The Notification extended only to "Tool Room Precision Co-ordinate Jig Boring Machine" and not to heavy drilling as well as milling machine which are independent machine with different functions. The Notification is required to be strictly construed and it cannot be extended to a versatile highly computerised machine. He submitted that the Tribunal has gone in great detail in respect of the said machine as in the case of Sukeshan Equipments Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, as reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 621 and after a very detailed examination of the technical aspect including literature, extracts of various technical books etc. has come to the conclusion that the machine in question does not fit with the description in Sr. No. 2 of the Table to the Notification in question. It is his submission that in the said reported case the details of the machine has also been discussed and after a very detailed examination, the Tribunal has to a majority order held that the benefit cannot be extended to machine in question. He submitted that the imports in the present case are also from the same supplier and manufacturer and therefore, the ratio of Sukeshan Equipments Pvt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Lastly, it is for the assessee to establish that the goods manufactured by him come within the ambit of the exemption notification. Since it is a case of exemption from duty, there is no question of any liberal construction to extend the term and scope of the exemption notification. Such exemption notification must be strictly construed and the assessee should bring himself squarely within the ambit of the notification. No extended meaning can be given to the exempted item to enlarge the scope of exemption granted by the notification." 15. The Learned Advocate, Shri Harbans Singh arguing in the case of M/s. Precision Tools & Components submitted that milling and drilling Functions are ancillary and complementary for jig boring. Drilling being a principal function, it satisfies the description of the Sr. No. 2 of the Notification, hence, the benefit has been rightly granted by the Collector (Appeals). He submitted that in the Sukeshan Equipments Pvt. Ltd.'s case, the Tribunal had not examined this aspect of the matter and therefore, the ratio of Sukeshan Equipments Pvt. Ltd. order cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. He submitted that the Assistant Collector ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r boring, counter sinking, facing, reaming, marking or making precision patterns are all parts and parcels of a boring, process except that they are various specialised aspects of boring operation or process. It is his contention that the machine is a simple, manually operated and not a sophisticated and computerised numerically controlled machine. It is his contention that drilling is the process of originating a hole. A drilled hole will not be accurate enough as regard its size or geometrical shape and also its positional accuracy. Boring is a process by which an already existing hole can be enlarged and finished; in all parameters-size, shape and position. While a drill may originate a hole, a boring machine generates a hold. Milling is a process to machine flat surface using rotating multi-tool cutters. He submits that a JIG is a device to maintain mechanically correct positional relationship of a workpiece as in a fixture and it also provides correct locational guidance for the tools used in the machining process. He submits that a fixture is a device used to maintain mechanically correct positional relationship of the work- piece, while machining, but it does not guide the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Learned DR countering the arguments submitted that in Sukeshan Equipments' case, the Learned DR had differentiated the case with that of HMT's case. He submitted that in HMT's case, Tribunal had gone into all the technical aspects of the matter and had accepted oral statement made by one Shri Prasad appearing for HMT who had stated to a query as to whether there are any jig boring machines which are capable of jig boring only and nothing else. He had replied that there is no such machines in the world. Therefore, the judgment rendered in HMT's case applies only to facts of that case and it is not based on any technical literature, while detailed literature has been examined in Sukeshan Equipments Pvt. Ltd.'s case. In the Sukeshan Equipments' case even opinion of experts had been referred to therefore, Tribunal after examining HMT's case had not followed that ratio and had opined that the machinery imported could not satisfy the terms of the Notification in view of enormous technical evidence produced before them. The Learned DR also relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Bakelite Hylam Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 643. 19.&ems....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e seen from the catalogue as well as description of the machinery in the case of M/s. Precision Tools, the machine is not an ordinary Jig Boring Machine. The DGTD has also not given any opinion about the machine being computer operated machine. Therefore, the opinion of DGTD cannot be said to be binding on the authorities. In this context the ratio cited by the Learned DR is totally applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of M/s. Precision Tools' case the catalogue indicates that machine is 24K40C4 CNC Single Post Vertical JIG Boring, Drilling and Milling Machine. The application and design features of the machine as per the technical details are given herein below : "Application and design features : The machine is designed for machining holes in various pieces with a high accuracy grade of their geometric shape, dimensions and spacing in Cartensian coordinates by boring, reaming, drilling, core-drilling and reaming. It can be used for finish and semi-finish milling of surfaces, facing, laying out of accurate tamplets and checking of distance between centers in finished pieces when employing a universal rotary table, the machine can be used for machining holes s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ket ISO 40 Shank taper of tools employed No. 4 Morse Distance from spindle nose end to table Working suface, mm 130 to 630 Spindle overhang, mm 450 Table working surface mm. 400x800 Table, travel, mm (not over) longitudial 630 Cross 400 Number of T-slots 5 T-slots spacing 80 T-slots width 14 Range of spindle rotation 6.3 to 3150 frequencies, min-1 Range of table and spindle head feed rates, mm/min 1 to 6000 Rapid traverse speed of table and spindle head, mm/min 6000 Positioning accuracy with probability of random deviations, + 3 (100%) over entire travel : of table, mm - 0.005 of saddle, mm - 0.005 of spindle head, mm - 0.012 Positioning accuracy with probability of random deviations +2 (99.5%) over entire travel : of table, mm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ools and that of M/s. DCL Finance Ltd. they are identical with that of machine in Sukeshan Equipments' case. Therefore, it has to be held that the ratio of Sukeshan Equipments squarely applies to both these cases and that HMT's case is not applicable and is clearly distinguishable. There is no need for reference of these cases to a Larger Bench, as pleaded by the Advocates. 22. The Learned Advocate P.A.S. Rao pleaded for allowing the affidavit of one Dr. Sushil. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in MMTC's case cited by the Learned DR belated evidence produced by a party to buttress its case is not worthy of credence, hence this evidence in the form of affidavit cannot be entertained at this late stage, more so over since the appellants are the Revenue and not the importers. It is further to be noted that the affidavit refers to the machinery in Sukeshan Equipment's case. Deponent of the affidavit has only examined the contents of the Sukeshan Equipments' judgment to give his opinion on the machine. Once court has given its judgment it is not for deponent to comment on the findings of the Sukeshan Equipment's case by quoting para 3 of the judgment. There....