ORDER
K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)
1. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
M/s. Racold Appliances Pvt. Ltd., Pimpri, Pune (hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondent’) are the manufacturers of domestic electric appliances falling under Tariff Item 33C of Central Excise Tariff, and other item falling under Tariff Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff. In 1982, due to the budgetary changes the respondent had filed a Classification List and classified their product ‘Spin dryer’ under Tariff Item 68. The Assistant Collector vide his order-in-original No. V(33C)30-5/VC/82, dated 24-9-1982 had classified the said product under Tariff Item 33C as the product has in built electrical device and the same is generally used for domestic purposes. However, he had further observed that the product ‘Spin dryer’ does not fall with in the Schedule appended to Notification No. 33/69, dated 1-3-1969 as amended and as such treated it as exempted from payment of Central Excise duty.
However, the Appellant Collector had observed that ‘Spin dryer’ is nothing but washing-cum-dryer machine and can very well fall within the dutiable varieties mentioned at Serial No. 6 the Schedule appended to the Notification No. 33/69. The Appellant Collector had, therefore, issued directions under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for filing application with Collector Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay under F. No. Rev-Cell-940/82, dated 11-5-1983. Accordingly, the Assistant Collector Central Excise, Pune II Division had filed an application in Form EA-2 with Collector Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay under his F. No. V(33C)30-5/VC/82/3068, dated 28-5-1983.
In appeal, the Appellate Collector has observed that dutiable item mentioned at Serial No. 6 of the Schedule appended to the Notification No. 33/69 is only, ‘Clothes washing machine’ and not drying machine. The function of ‘Spin dryer’ is for drying clothes and ‘drying’ is not included in ‘washing’ which can be done separately in other product. He has, therefore, rejected the appeal vide his order-in-appeal No. V(33C)30-5/VC/82/4555, dated 11-7-1985. Learned Senior Departmental Representative Shri K.K. Jha contended that Collector (Appeals) erred in not extending the bar from exemption to the dryer in dispute under Notification No. 33/69. Clothes washing machine, the learned Senior Departmental Representative urged is only a genus of which spin dryer is species and hence it would be covered by the term ‘clothes washing machine’ occuring in the Notification. Washing machine and spin dryer together constitute the complete washing machine. Shri S.K. Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondents urged that the clothes washing machine and the dryer perform different functions. They are different appliances meant for different purposes and hence a drier cannot be termed as a washing machine. The present Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 has clearly recognised and brought out the difference between the two appliances wherein the dryers are classified under Heading 84.21 Central Excise Tariff Act and washing machine are separately classified under Heading 84.50 Central Excise Tariff. The learned Counsel pleaded that the Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals) have correctly found that dryers manufactured by the respondents are not covered by the expression clothes washing machine specified at Serial No. 6 in the Schedule to Notification No. 33/69 as an appliance excluded from the exemption. In reply, learned Senior Departmental Representative pointed out that the old Central Excise Tariff and new Central Excise Tariff Act are differently structured.
2. The submissions made by both the sides have been carefully considered. The design and function of the spin dryer as found by the Assistant Collector in his order are as follows:-
“… Spin dryer consists of components such as duty paid electric motor, a funnel type container having holes at the rim, and a case having lid at the top and an outlet at the bottom for the squeezed water and a power cord, and is generally used for domestic purposes. The washed clothes are kept in the funnel type of container. When the power is supplied through the power cord, the funnel starts spinning as the same is attached to the shaft of the electric motor. Due to the rotation the water comes out of the clothes as per the centrifugal action of force. The water comes on the rim, and gets out through the holes provided on them. From there, it falls in the case and comes out through the outlet provided at the bottom”. The Assistant Collector further noted the respondents contention that the article is not a washing cum drying machine. The respondents have further urged that the spin dryer is a centrifugal dryer used only for drying clothes. Thus, it is clear that the spin dryer in question is a separate appliance which comes into play AFTER the clothes are washed. It is not the case of the Department that the article is a composite washing cum drying machine. The description at Serial No. 6 of the specified goods in the Schedule to the Notification No. 33/69, “Clothes washing machine’s”. When washing and drying are separately carried out in machines designed for the respective purpose, it will be unreasonable to bring the spin dryer, which, as a stand-alone unit, performs only the function of removal of moisture by centrifugal force from clothes which are already washed, into the ambit of the expression “Clothes washing machines”, and to deny it the exemption from duty as a domestic electric appliance under Item 33C Central Excise Tariff. In the result, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is rejected. The Cross-objection being merely supportive of the impugned order is also dismissed.