ORDER
V.P. Gulati, Member (T)
1. Captioned appeal is against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported one vertical high speed wire enamelling machine and claimed assessment of the same under T.I. 84.59(2) CTA. The lower authority, however, held the same as assessable under 84.59(1) CTA holding it as a machine not intended for production of goods. The appellants have requested for decision in the case on merits.
3. Learned SDR, Shri Gopinath, was heard in the matter. He fairly conceded that the lower authority had not examined the issue in depth inasmuch as the classification of the machine in question should have been also examined also from the angle as to whether the same was covered under the description “Machinery for treating metals, wood or similar materials” figuring under 84.59(2). He stated that in the CCCN on which the scheme of the Customs Tariff is based, under 84.59(2) a list of machines for treating metals is given and among the various machine, tin plating machines are also listed therein. He stated that the enamelling of the wire is similar in nature to the tin plating of the wire.
4. We observe that the learned SDR has rightly pointed out that the lower authority should have examined the matter from the point of view as to whether a machine imported can be considered as for treating of metals. In this context the Tribunal considered the assessment of lacquering machines and in their Order No. 1999/87-B2 dated 17-9-1987 it has been held that the lacquering machines are covered under the description of machines ‘similar to ones for treatment of metal and wood’ and held the same to be assessable under 84.59(2). In this context Tribunal has observed as under :-
“Taking the word ‘treat’ in the ordinary sense, it would mean subjecting the material to a certain process to obtain a certain result. In case of metal and wood, the treatment of these as pleaded by the Revenue would result in some change in the surface structure of the material to impart to these certain qualities. Now by treating metal certain qualities can be imparted to the same, which may be only peculiar to metals and likewise, in the case of wood, treatment may result in imparting of certain qualities to the wood peculiar to it only. Likewise in the case of other materials the treatment by a machine will produce effects peculiar to those. It is not the case of the Revenue nor it sounds to reason that machines other than those for treating metal and wood should be such that these should impart qualities to the treated materials similar to those in the case of metal and wood. The only rational way to look at this would be that the machines which are covered under the heading should be capable of treating the other materials with a view to bring about some qualitative change in these materials. Surface treatment is one such process.”
It is seen that enamelling of the wire is a treatment similar to lacquering and is also similar to tin plating inasmuch as by enamelling a qualitative change is brought about in the surface of the material as the enamelled material acquires by enamelling certain surface properties. Following the ratio of Tribunal’s decision referred to supra, we hold that the machine is assessable under 84.59(2) CTA. The appeal is therefore allowed with consequential relief.