ORDER
Shri S.S.Sekhon
1. The respondents manufacture oil/water cooling and chilling units which were classified by the respondents and the Commissioner (Appeals) under heading No.84.66 of the CET. This Classification was arrived at after obtaining and relying upon the expert opinion of Professor and Head Automobile Engineering Department, Hubli. He has opined that the chilling units having a function of cooling in 40′ c to 10′ c and this function of cooling is subsdiary to the primary function of the machines for which these coolers are attached; the units do not have any independent functions of their own. Commissioner in the present appeal, has taken the ground:-
a) literature of the disputed goods indicate that the goods are used to control the temperature of liquid which is the primary function of the product, it has wide applications in Injection moulding machine, plasma laser and welding equipments, electro microscope, x-ray tube etc.
b) the technical opinion and technical literature make it clear that the oil/water chilling units are designed primarily with specific function to control the temperature of liquid by cooling liquids, when they are used with other machines, efficiency is achieved by controlling the temperature of the machines.
c) the functions of the machines under clearance is only change in temperature and would be correctly classified under 84.19.
d) they cannot be considered as essential accessories to other machines for classification under Chapter 84.66 as the same is used with other machines to increase the efficiency by controlling the temperature of the liquids by cooling the liquid; the assessee is only clearing the chillers and not the other machines with coolers.
e) they also relied on Chapter Note 2 (e) under Chapter 84 of CET to submit that the items under dispute are rightly classified under Chapter 84.19 of CET 1985.
2. We have heard Shri. George JDR appearing for the Department who reiterated the grounds, especially of Chapter Note 2 (e) under Chapter 84 of CETA 1985. Shri. Rajeswara Shastry, Adv. for the respondents is submits that the unit is certified by the Professor after visit to the factory; the entities are such which are used in conjunction with other machines and this is an admitted fact. He further submits that chilling machines as certified by the Professor have no independent function of their own as machines. He submits that the classification under Chapter 84.66 has been arrived at and is correct and relied upon the decision of CCE Bangalore vs. Hind High Vacuum Co. Pvt. Ltd., in 1999 (112) ELT 233 (T) wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal has upheld that the cooling system having no independent function unless connected to main unit as classifiable under Sub-heading 8485 and not under subheading 8418 to submit that the classification under 84.66 arrived by the lower authorities should be upheld in this case.
3. We have considered the submissions and find:-
a) A plain reading of Chapter note 2 (e) of Chapter 84 of CETA 1985 would indicate that machines and machinery designed for mechanical operation in which a change of temperature, even if necessary, is subsdiary function are excluded from Heading 8419 by this Chapter note itself. Therefore we cannot find any force or arguments of revenue on this Chapter note to upheld their appeal, since this Chapter note excludes the subject goods which have been certified by the Professor to be having cooling function as subsdiary function and also not to be independent machines to be excluded from heading 8419 of CETA 1985.
b) We have considered the submission in the appeal para 5, that the item is not an essential accessory. However in the same breath, the Learned Commissioner in ground of appeal has submitted that the item in question “… as the same is used with other machines to increase the efficiency by controlling the temperature of the liquids by cooling the liquid”. This to our mind is a contradiction, since if it goes to increase the efficiency of the ‘other machine’ with which it is used, then it would be an accessary to that ‘othermachine’. We fail to also understand the phrase ‘Controlling the temperature of the lie uids by cooling the liquid’ obviously no commercial technical use would be achieved by cooling the liquid in the chiller, will the cooling results in the cooling of the ‘other machine’ or the ‘job’ on the ‘other machine’ in conjunction with which it is used.
c) The classification as arrived by the lower authorities is based on reasoning and application of the material before them which has not been found fault with in the appeal before us.
d) Relying on the ratio of the decision in 1999 (112) ELT 233(T) we cannot classify the goods under 84.19.
e) We therefore find no reason, to differ with the classification arrived at by the lower authorities.
4. In view of our findings we find no grounds to upholds the present appeal, we reject the same.
Ordered accordingly.
(Pronounced and dictated in the Open Court)