By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, MAY 11, 2017: THE issue is classification of the technical documents imported by the appellants for use in setting up of ‘spin drawing winding machine'. It is the case of the appellants that the said drawings are correctly classifiable under CH 4911 1090 while Revenue says it is under CH 8445 40.

The AA classified the technical documents as proposed by the Revenue on the sole ground that they were in respect of a machine and which machine is classifiable under chapter 84.

Aggrieved, the appellant is before the CESTAT.

The Bench observed that the findings of the AA are not sustainable because –

++ The bill of entry filed by the appellants clearly indicated that the documents were in fact technical documents and were part of the contract entered by appellant for the purchase of the machine. It is also undisputed that these documents were required for the installation and smooth functioning of the machines; appellants filed separated bill of entry for these documents as they were received in part consignments of the machinery. We find from the records that the value of the documents were already considered and included by the revenue for levy and discharge of Customs duty. We find that these documents were only drawing required for assembly of the machine, the same cannot be by any stretch of imagination considered as parts/components of the machine and merit classification under 8445.

Noting that identical issue had come up before the Eastern Regional bench in the case of Birla Tyres [Order No.- A-112/CAL/2001 dated January 25, 2001] and where it was held that the order classifying the drawings and designs as machinery cannot be upheld and the same are correctly classifiable under chapter 49 and that the Civil appeal against the said order filed by Revenue was dismissed by the Supreme Court [Civil Appeal No. 1716 of 2002 [D924 of 2002] dated February 25, 2002 ], the CESTAT held that the impugned order classifying the technical documents under chapter 84 is unsustainable.

Consequently, the confiscation ordered by the adjudicating authority as well as the penalty imposed was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

(See 2017-TIOL-1583-CESTAT-MUM)