1999 (3) TMI 171

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... had imported a machine which was declared by them as "High Speed Automatic Toffee Wrapping Machine". However, the machinery consisted of three units - batch former, rope sizer and wrapping machine; that the catalogue clearly revealed that all the three units constituted a continuous and integrated line and performed the function of producing sweets of exact sizes and wrapping; the Notification No. 225/86 provides a concessional rate of duty in respect of high speed automatic wrappers (Sl. No. 29); that the concession was meant only for the machinery performing the wrapping function only and not for a composite machine doing other functions. He, further, submitted that the intention of the Government was to provide partial exemption only t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y of maximum operating speeds above 120/minutes." 4. He mentioned that phraseology of this entry was identical to the one used in the Notification; that both DGTD and Chief Controller of Imports and Exports have interpreted a High Speed Automatic Toffee Wrapping Machine would consist of not only the wrapping unit but also batch roller and rope sizer; that accordingly Customs Authorities cannot give a different interpretation to the same term; that the Customs Authorities had given the benefit of this Notification to other importers which was evident from the daily list of imports. He further submitted that the impugned product has been classified by the department under Heading 84.22 of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act as "Wra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... component or as being that machine which performs the principal function and relied upon the decision in the case of Collector of Customs v. Mazda Packaging Ltd. - 1994 (69) E.L.T. 283 (T) and Milk Food Ltd. v. C.C. - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 549 (T). 5. In reply the ld. DR submitted that the Notification in question is not omnibus Notification providing concessional rate of duty to all goods falling under Chapter 84 of the Tariff; the Notification provides partial exemption only to the goods specified in the Table annexed to the Notification and falling under Chapter 39, 73, 84 or 90 of the Tariff; that as the impugned machine was not only automatic wrapping machine, the benefit of notification cannot be extended to it. The clarification ....