ORDER
Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 3570/88-BCH of Collector of Customs (Appeals).
2. The appellants imported Perkin-Elmer Model LC-85 Dual Beam variable wavelength UV Detector for Liquid Chromatography with Autocontrol Accessory and claimed assessment under Tariff Item 90.25. The authority below held that the goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 90.29(1). Hence this appeal.
2A. Arguing for the appellants, Principal Scientific Officer appearing for the company submits that while placing order they had by mistake indicated the title as for H.P. Liquid Chromatography. They subsequently realised the mistake and issued change in order No. I just prior to despatch of the equipment by the supplier. It was because of this mistake that the goods were classified as spares. They have in their unit a Liquid Chromatographic system for analysis of various organic substances such as oils, lubricants, additives, solvents, polymers, plasticizers etc. This chromatography system essentially consists of (a) the Perkin-Elmer LC-85B Dual Beam variable wavelength UV-Detector, (b) a Solvent delivery pump, (c) an injector and (d) analyser column. The UV-Detector is the main equipment in this system. The remaining three items are operating accessories.
3. Ld. DR reiterates the department’s order.
4. We have heard both sides. We find in the invoice dated 10-29-19841 the first item shows Perkin-Elmer Model LC-85B Dual Beam variable wavelength UV Detector for Liquid Chromatography with Autocontrol Accessory. Other items are also shown as spares. It is conceded that there is no dispute about other items and the dispute is only in regard to wavelength UV Detector. The Appellant submits before us that this was a complete equipment by itself. From the technical opinion placed in the file, it is seen that the appellants have a Liquid Chromatography system. The technical opinion indicates that UV Detector is the major equipment in the operation of Liquid Chromatography system. The pump, injector and analyser column cannot be called major equipment because their function is of supporting nature. In view of this Spectrophotometer detector by itself is a equipment and cannot be considered as spare without indicating spare of what? The technical literature placed in the appeal papers refers to the spectroscopic capabilities and indicate that it is as spectrophotometer more appropriately classifiable under Tariff Item 90.25. In view of this, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.