ORDER
Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Siemens Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of the equipment and accessories for the Monforte Make CNC Turning Machine Model RNC 1000-E. The goods had been imported for display and exhibition in the India International Trade Fair, 1984. The goods were cleared under the fair Bill of Entry dated 30-10-1984. The appellants had purchased the machinery along with equipment and accessories, and filed a Bill of Entry on 19-9-1984. The equipment and accessories were classified on merits under specific headings and were not classified along with the machine for the purposes of the Customs duty. The Customs duty as appraised was paid and subsequently the refund claim was filed on the ground that the equipment and accessories should be classified along with the machine. The refund claim was rejected. The matter was taken up in appeal when the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority. The case was re-adjudicated The refund claim was again rejected and the appeal filed against the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs was rejected by the order of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, which is under challenge in these proceedings.
2. The matter was posted for hearing on 10-9-1997. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits.
3. On behalf of the Revenue, we have heard Shri Lakhinder Singh, JCDR, and have gone through the facts on record.
4. It is seen that the goods were imported for the Pavillion of the Federal Republic of Germany in the India International Trade Fair, 1984. The importation as per the invoice dated 13-9-1984 at page 10 of the paper book was for the original Monforte High Performance CNC Turning Machine Model RNC 1000-E, Serial No. 042 No. 4, Machine No. 12364 along with certain standard equipment and accessories. From the invoice it is seen that the value for the base machine had been shown separately from the value for standard equipment and accessories, while the value for the base machine was DM-220135, the value of standard equipment and accessories was DM-121940. It is further seen that the value for accessories had been shown separately for each item at page 17 of the paper book. Similarly, the value of mechanical spares and electrical spares have been shown separately itemwise on page 18 of the paper book.
4. Under the Customs Tariff the parts and accessories, if they are specifically covered by any particular heading are to be classified therein. It is seen from the information on record that the accessories and spares were not part of the base machine, the fact that they were required for the working of the machine will not make them part to be classified along with machine if they were separately classifiable under any other particular heading in the Tariff. The appellants have described the various parts and accessories. To illustrate chunk 3KTNC 250 was used for clamping and holding the component while machining. This will not make the chunk as a part of the machine. Similarly, Drawbar for chunk were integral part of the chunk and have to be treated separately as the chunk. There were transformers, refrigeration system, conveyor, tank etc. which have also been separately priced and separately identified.
5. In the product literature on record, it is referred that the hydraulic equipment was supplied separately. The optional ancillary equipment has been referred to in the product literature at page 54 of the paper book.
6. The appellants had cleared the-goods under dispute on the duty as assessed separately and had subsequently filed a refund claim. The Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund) had rejected the refund claim on the ground that the claims have failed to supply the documents, information called from them. Before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) also, no material was placed to establish that the imported standard accessories were suitable for use solely or principally with the standard machines. He had rejected the appeal as unsubstantiated.
7. The appellants in the appeal before the Tribunal had referred to the certificate dated 6-11-1986 from the suppliers. We find that in the certificate it is mentioned that the accessories and spares were especially meant for machine and were essentially required for the normal operations of the machine. It does not establish that these goods were used solely or principally with the base machines imported. We find that in the statement dated 12-2-1986, value had been shown separately for each item. In addition, the value of the base machine has been separately shown in the invoice at page 10 of the paper book. Thus, the base machine was complete without these standard equipment and accessories. When the value for the base machine has been shown separately, it cannot be said that the equipment and accessories priced in addition were part of that base machine and for the purposes of classification should go along with the base machine.
8. Taking all the relevant facts and considerations into account, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.