Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Tribunal

Hindustan Lever Limited vs Collector Of Customs on 4 August, 1997

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Delhi
Hindustan Lever Limited vs Collector Of Customs on 4 August, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997 (94) ELT 687 Tri Del


ORDER

S.S. Kang, Member (J)

1. Appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 27-3-1989 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.

2. The appellant made import of Temperature Pressure Transducers hereinafter called goods. The appellant claim classification of the goods in question under 90.24(1) of the Customs Tariff Heading. But the Revenue classified these goods under Customs Tariff Heading No. 90.29(2). The appellant got clear the goods and therefore, filed a refund claim. The refund claim was rejected on the ground that the goods were classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading No. 90.24(1)..The appellant filed an appeal and the appeal was dismissed.

3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the goods imported by the appellant is a combination of pressure and temperature sensor allowing simultaneous measurement of these two parameters in a single mounting well. The transducers, so imported, contain a Strain Guage Transducer comprising of 4 resistance elements indicated as a wheat stone bridge circuit. When the transducer is subjected to pressure, the resistance valve changes proportional to the applied pressure and can be measured by a meter. The transducers do not contain thermionic valves, transistors or, similar semi-conductors, devices or light emitting diodes or electronic micro circuits. He therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed and the goods in question be held to be classified under Customs Tariff Heading No. 90.24(1).

4. Shri S.N. Ojha, DR appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the goods were rightly classified at the time of clearance. He relied upon the Chambers Dictionary of Science & Technology and submits that the transducers are used in various machineries and they are to be classified differently as per their functions. He also relied upon Alphabetical Index Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System and its Explanatory Notes wherein the “transducer ultra-sound” is included under Heading 84.79. He therefore, prays that the appeal be dismissed.

5. Heard the submissions of both sides. In this case, the appellants made import of transducers and they filed their classification under Tariff Heading 90.24(1) but the Revenue classified the goods under Tariff Heading 90.29(2). Tariff Heading 90.29(2) is reproduced as under:

"90.29        Parts or accessories suitable for use solely, or principally with    on, or more of the articles falling within Heading No.
90.23, 90.24, 90.26, 90.27 or 90.28. 

(1)              Not elsewhere specified.
 

(2)              Parts, or accessories containing Thermionic valves, or transistors, or similar semi-conductors, devices, or light emitting diodes, or electronic micro circuits, or capacitors other than paper capacitors."
 

6. The goods as classified by the Revenue are parts or accessories containing thermionic valves, or transistors, or similar semi-conductors, devices, or light emitting diodes, or electronic micro circuits or capacitors other than paper capacitors. From the product literature produced by the appellants, the product is plastic melt pressure transducers models PT460E, PT462E, TPT463E, PT467E. Economical pressure and temperature sensors for use in polymer processes requiring repeatable reliable performance.

7. The product literature further shows that the goods in question are Dynisco’s TPT463E is a combination pressure and temperature sensor allowing the simultaneous measurement of these two parameters in a single mounting well. The pressure transducer portion is identical in mounting size, and performance to the PT462E, but has been modified internally to accommodate a removable thermocouple. A dual thermocouple output is also available as an option. The TPI463L’S temperature probe is sealed against condensation and corrosive fumes and may be replaced without interruption of the pressure signal.

8. From the above, we find that the goods in question are neither parts or accessories containing thermionic valves, or transistors, or similar semiconductors, devices, or light emitting diodes, or electronic micro circuits, or capacitors other than paper capacitors as prescribed under Tariff Heading 90.29(2).

9. Appellants pleaded that the goods in question merit classification under Customs Tariff Heading No. 90.24(1). Tariff Heading 90.24(1) is reproduced below:

90.24       Instruments and apparatus for measuring, checking or automatically controlling the flow, depth, pressure, or, other variable of liquid, or gas, or for automatically controlling temperature....
 

 (ii)         Not elsewhere specified."
 

The produce literature as reproduced above shows that the goods in question are pressure and temperature sensors for use in polymer processes requiring repeatable reliable performance. The Tribunal in the case of Polyolefine Industries Ltd., Bombay v. C.C., Bombay, reported in 1983 (12) E.L.T. 357 (CEGAT) held that pressure transducers are entitled for classification under Tariff Heading 90.24(1) and the Tribunal in the case of Instrumentation Ltd. v. C.C., reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 540 (Tribunal) held that transducer is a general purpose instrument. Transducer has other application also. It is used to convert physical magnitude of one form of energy into another. Transducers are used mainly to measure differential pressure of transmitters. Although it operates on the electrical principles, the function of which is employed is only for mechanical purposes which are classifiable under Heading 90.24. The Revenue filed an SLP in the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Instrumentation Ltd. v. C.C. The appeal of the department was dismissed by r the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. A244 (S.C.).

10. Applying the ratio of the above-mentioned decision of the Tribunal, we hold that temperature pressure transducers imported by the appellants are classifiable under Tariff Heading 90.24(1). Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Consequential relief, if any, is subject to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries v. U.O.I. reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247.