ORDER
V.P. Gulati, Vice President
1. The issue in the appeal relates to classification of clothes dryer. The learned lower authority has assessed the same under T.I. 84.79 and the revenue has sought for assessment of the same under T.I. 84.50 in the alternative under T.I. 84.21. The three tariff headings are reproduced below :-
84.21 – Centrifuges, including centrifugal dryers; filtering or purifying machinery and apparatus, for liquids or gases.
84.50 – Household or laundry type washing machines, including machines which both wash and dry.
84.79 – Machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter.
2. The respondents have sought for the decision in their absence.
3. The learned DR has reiterated the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal are set out as under in the appeal memorandum :-
” The CCE (Jud.), Madras files this appeal against the order of the CCE (Appeals), Madras for the following reasons :-
(a) Collector (Appeals) has erred in not considering and ruling out other classifications before arriving at 84.79.
(b) Heading 84.21 specifically covers centrifugal dryers.
The machine can be classified under heading 84.79 only if it is not specified or included elsewhere in chapter 84. While considering classification under 84.79, the Collector (Appeals) did not verify that the goods are not classifiable under any other heading. The cloth (spin dryer) is mentioned in headings 84.50, 84.51 and 84.21. It is agreed that heading 84.50 covers only washing machines with or without dryers and not the spin dryers by themselves. Under the heading 84.21 only the machinery for drying is included. Hence, the dryers will not be classifiable there. The spin dryers which are centrifugal are thus appropriately classifiable under 84.21. In the absence of distinction being made, this heading would include both industrial as well as domestic dryers provided they are centrifugal machines, which is the case in respect of the goods in question.
Collector (Appeals) appears to have failed to examine the above points before classifying the spin dryer under heading 84.79 as the item having individual function and not specified or included elsewhere in that chapter.”
4. We have considered the pleas made by the learned DR. We observe that tariff 84.50 covers only washing machines or such of those washing machines which have a dryer also incorporated therein as one unit. In the present case, admittedly the goods involved are only dryers. This would be used after the washing of the clothes has been done in the washing machine or even domestically by hand. Since the wording of the tariff does not cover the clothes dryers as such, we hold that the learned lower authority has rightly held that the goods in question will not be assessable under tariff 84.50. In regard to the alternative plea, we find that for assessment of goods under tariff 84.21, the learned lower authority has not adverted to this tariff heading. This tariff heading covers centrifugal dryers. In the HSN notes, we find that the clothes dryers are also covered within the ambit of this tariff heading. Since the CET is based on HSN in case of any doubt a reliance can be placed on the scope of the entries as set out under HSN. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) in para 18 has held as under :-
” We are of the view that the Tribunal as well as the High Court fell into the error of over-looking the fact that the structure of the CET is based on the internationally accepted nomenclature found in the HSN and, therefore, any dispute relating to tariff classification must, as far as possible, be resolved with reference to the nomenclature indicated by the HSN unless there be an express different intention indicated by the CET Act, 1985 itself. The definition of a term in the ISI Glossary, which has a different purpose, cannot, in case of a conflict, override the clear indication of the meaning of an identical expression in the same context in the HSN In the HSN, block board is included within the meaning of the expression “similar laminated wood” in the same context of classification of block board. Since the CET Act, 1985 is enacted on the basis and pattern of the HSN, the same expression used in the Act must, as far as practicable, be construed to have the meaning which is expressly given to it in the HSN when there is no indication in the Indian Tariff of a different intention.”
5. The learned DR informs that the goods are of centrifugal type and since there is no averment to the contrary from the respondents and in fact in their letter dated 24-12-1996 they have stated that they are not filing any cross-objection and they have also informed that ‘they are not appearing for the personal hearing in the matter. They described the goods as spin dryer. Spin dryer obviously is a centrifugal dryer.
6. Therefore, in view of the above, we hold that the goods would be classifiable under TI 84.21. The revenue appeal for reclassification under T.I. 84.21 is allowed.