ORDER
V.P. Gulati, Member(T)
1. The captioned appeal is against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) New Delhi.
2. Brief facts of the case is that the appellants imported Coil Winding Machine described as Precision Automatic Coil Winding Machine and claimed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 118/80-Cus. Benefit under this Notification is available in respect of machines and equipments which are designed for use in the electronic industry. The appellants claimed that the machine imported by them was covered under S. No. 7 of the table to the said Notification. The lower authorities held that there was nothing in the catalogue produced by the Appellants to show that the same was designed for use in the electronic industry and held the same as not covered under the exemption notification.
3. The learned representative of the appellants Shri Sudhir Goel, Materials Manager for the appellants, pleaded that they had imported the coil winding machine of CS Model and same was intended for use in their factory in which they manufacture various electronic components. He has pleaded that the machine was intended for manufacture of coils for use in the electronic industry. The learned representative of the appellants was asked to clarify the position in regard to the following points :-
(i) whether the machine was automatic and of precision type;
(ii) whether it was exclusively for production of coils which would be used only in the electronic industry;
(iii) whether the machine was in any way different from other machines used for winding coils in the electrical industry;
He stated that in the catalogue it has been shown that the Model CS Bobbin and Coil Winder had an arrangement for precise automatic guiding of the wire, and to that extent the machine can be considered as an automatic precision coil winding machine. It was pointed out to him that for automatic coil winding machine, it should have the attributes of automatic feeding and removal of the coils. He submitted that only the functional part of the machine was automatic while the handling part was non-automatic. He explained that there are machines in which both the handling and the functional parts were automatic and he further explained that in that case the formation, feeding of the coils, removal of the coils from the machine, etc. are all automatic.
4. Regarding the second point he explained that they were the actual users and the coils manufactured by them are meant for electronic use. He, however, could not show whether functionally the coils on the machine could be used in other industries also.
5. Regarding point No. 3, he could not point out any feature of the machine which set it apart the general purpose coil winding machines used in the electrical industries and which rendered the machine more useful for the electronic industry. He could not also explain as to the electrical ratings of the coils manufactured on this machine. He explained that the coils manufactured on the machine were of such type as were generally used in the electronic industry.
6. The learned SDR for the department pleaded that for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 118/80-Cus., the machine has to be such as can be shown to be designed for use in the electronic industry. He stated that the appellants have failed to prove that it was so in their case. He further stated that the machine had been invoiced as automatic precision coil winding machine but the catalogue does not describe it so. He also pointed out that by an amendment of the Notification later, the exemption was made available to the listed items of machinery and equipments used in the electronic industry. He stated that the appellants imported these goods before the amendment and therefore the case has to be decided on the basis of the Notification as it worded before the amendment.
7. We observe that when the appellants described the machine as Precision Automatic Winding Machine, the catalogue does not described it so. The learned representative for the appellants was asked by the Bench as to how the suppliers came to describe this as an automatic coil winding machine when they themselves do not describe it so in their catalogue. He stated that since the winding machines covered under the notification are automatic winding machines they had asked the same to be invoiced accordingly as they were convinced that the machine answered to this description by virtue of its functions of precise automatic guiding of the wire being there in the design of the machine. We observe that the learned representative of the appellants has clarified that the machine is automatic to the extent of feeding of the wire and rest of the functions were not automatic. The machine therefore, can be considered as only semiautomatic. This apart, the appellants have not been able to show that the coils wound on this machine are such which are used in the electronic industry only by virtue of their rating and size etc. They have also not been able to show that there is anything in the design of the machine which makes the machine more useful for electronic industry. In view of the above, we find no merits in the appellants’ claim and we hold that the lower authorities have correctly held the machine as not covered by the Notification 118/80 for the benefit of exemption. We, therefore, reject the appeal.