ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This is a Revenue appeal arising from the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) accepting the importer’s contention that the imported item described in the Bill of Entry as “Spot Coater RSC 40 and Sheet Feeder with Tachometer and Spares” as classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.35 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and not under Heading 84.59(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as has been held by the lower authorities. The appellants had filed a refund claim for reassessment of the goods under Heading 84.35. The Assistant Collector held that spot coater, parts, sheet feeder and parts are classifiable under 84.35 as claimed to the extent granted the relief to the importer. As regards the spot coater and its parts the claim for classification under Heading 84.35 has held untenable as specific ancillary machines for printing have been mentioned in CCCN 84.35 but Lacquer & varnish coating machines do not figure herein. He has noted the catalogue of spot coater and observed that lacquer and varnish coating machine and its classification under Heading 84.59(1), machines and mechanical appliances, having individual functions, not falling within any other heading of this Chapter.
(1) Not elsewhere specified.
(2) is proper and hence rejected the claim in respect of this item.
2. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the importer’s contention on the reasoning that the machine is for printing of Aluminium sheets and tin plates which are given base coat with the help of lacquering or varnishing machine, i.e. Spot Coater. He has held that if Heading 84.35 is carefully seen, it not only covers the machines ancillary to printing but also covers other printing machines. He has observed that at page 1286/1287 of E.N. to B.T.N. some special machines other than normal type of printing machines are listed which are also covered under Heading 84.35. It shows that the Heading 84.35 covers various kinds of printing machines like machine for printing tin foil boxes or other container and others. He has further observed that from the catalogue of Spot Coater, it is seen that it is a roller type printing machine used for colour/lacquer coating of metal sheets. This machine and its parts would be more appropriately classificable under Heading 84.35 and not under Heading 84.59(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
3. The Revenue is aggrieved with this reasoning. It is stated in the appeal memo that the manufacturer’s catalogue shows that the machine imported model RSC/40 is nothing but ‘Coater’ meaning that the machine is designed to apply lacquer, varnish, enamel and other coating to various sheet materials, especially where strips or portions of the sheet need to be left bare and free of coating. Therefore, it is stated that the Collector (Appeals) failed to understand that there is a wide difference between printing machine and coating machine. The catalogue shows very clearly that the machine imported has got specific application on metal decoration only, by using other materials. It is stated that the imported machine has got separate identity by function/description as “Coater” which cannot be treated as printing machine and as such the machine is capable of functioning independently for coating the metals like sheet/strips. It is stated that CCCN (pages 1286 and 1287) is very clear, which only relates to other types of printing machines and not for the coating machine. The machine indicated in the said pages of CCCN and all in the nature of printing machine and nowhere is indicated the machine which is under dispute. Therefore, they states that the classification adopted by the lower authorities under Heading 84.59(1) of CTA, 1975 is correct and proper that is required to be upheld by setting aside the impugned order.
4. We have heard the learned DR, Shri K.K. Jha for the Revenue and Shri Y. Subramaniyam, the Representative of the respondents.
5. The learned DR submitted that the imported machinery cannot be considered under Heading 84.35 with description other printing machinery; machinery for uses ancillary to printing as the process of coating lacquer from the sheets is an independent process and has no connection with printing on the sheets. He submits that the BTN Notes appearing at page 1287 in Chpater 84.35 refers only those machines for use ancillary to printing involving sheets or rolls of paper only. The present machinery which on metal sheets did not come within the term sheet as referred to at page 1287 under Heading 84.35. He submits that the heading 84.59 with description “Miscellaneous machinery and mechanical appliances” is more specific for the reason that BTN Notes at page 1369 under Heading 84.59 referring to heading “miscellaneous machinery and mechanical appliances” includes at Sl. No. 8 “Machinery and mechanical appliances for cask tarring or coating other than spraying appliances of Heading 84.21.” He submits that the specification being very clear and the machinery not being used as ancillary to printing and the process being an independent, therefore, it cannot be brought under Heading 84.35 which covers only “Other printing machinery; machinery for use ancillary to printing”. He submits that the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs v. Reliable Moulders as reported in 1995 (79) E.L.T. held that the classification of automatic hotfoil marking machine (Model No. P. 121) under Chapter Heading 84.59(1) and set aside the Collector (Appeals) classification under Heading 84.35. He submits that this ratio would apply to the facts of the present case.
6. Arguing for the importer, the learned Representative of the company submitted that the imported machinery was used as an ancillary to printing unit and it was in line with production machinery used along with printing machinery. He submits that the process of coating with lacquer has to be done before and after the printing on this machinery. Therefore, the machinery used with ancillary to printing has been rightly classifiable under Heading 84.35. He relies on BTN Notes under Heading 84.35 appearing at page 1285 which clearly states under the heading “machineries ancillary to printing with such machineries have to be classifiable along with printing machines”. He submits that the citation referred to by the learned DR is not appropriate and not applicable to the facts of the present case. He points out to the Tribunal’s judgment rendered in the case of Nectarine Pharmacy v. Collector of Customs as reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 602 which is more apppropriate and applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned Representative also refers to the catalogue produced by him along with paperbook.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the record. The Tariff Heading 84.35 reads “Other printing machinery; machines for uses ancillary to printing”, whereas Heading 84.59 reads “Machines and mechanical appliances, having individual functions, not falling within any other heading which is :-
“(1) Not elsewhere specified
(2) Machines and mechanical appliances designed for the production of a commodity, machinery for treating metals, wood or similar materials, tor stripping and cutting of tobacco leaf or for cutting or rolling tea leaves; machines for mounting card clothing; nuclear reactors.”
8. The Revenue wants the classification of the impugned machinery under 84.59(1) on the ground that the imported machinery being a coater is more appropriate for classification under this heading as per the reading of BTN Notes. Under this note appearing at page 1369 under the said heading “Miscellaneous machinery and mechanical appliances at Sl. No. 8 which refers to “Machinery and mechanical appliances for cask tarring or coating other than spraying appliances of Heading 84.21”. It is seen that the item is described in the Bill of Entry as “Spot Coater”. The Catalogue on this machinery states that “spot coater is an economically priced machine, designed to apply lacquer, varnish, enamel and other similar coatings to various sheet materials, especially where strips or portions of the sheet need to be left bare and free of coating”.
9. As can be seen from the literature, this spot coater has got provision for connection to the main dry shaft for printing line. The importer has produced photos to show that these machines have been placed in production line along with the printing machine. It is their contention that the coater is required for lacquering the sheets which has to be done and such process has to be done before and after the printing of the sheets, therefore, it is their contention that it has to be considered as a machine ancillary to printing.
10. On a careful consideration we find force in this submissions. The reason being that the printing machinery has been classified under Heading 84.35 as “other printing machinery”. This Heading 84.35 also covers “machines for uses ancillary to printing”. The HSN Explanatory Notes at page 1287 under Heading 84.35 reads :-
“(II) Machines for uses ancillary to printing This group covers machines (whether or not imported separately) for uses ancillary to printing exclusively designed to operate with printing machines and used during or after the printing operation for feeding, handling or further working the sheets or rolls of paper.”
11. As can be seen from the reading of the above BTN at Page 1287, it is quite clear that machinery which is imported separately are together with printing during the printing operation for feeding, handling or further working the sheets are required to be classified under this heading. It is seen from the catalogue that the spot coater can be lined along with printing machines and the sheets which are lacquered directly to the printing machines for printing. Thereafter, it is again rolled, sent back to this machine for further coating of lacquer. The details of the said catalogue are noted herein below :-
“Spot Coaler : An economically priced machine, designed to apply lacquer, varnish, enamel and other similar coatings to various sheet materials, especially where strips or portions of the sheet need to be left bare and free of coating.Can be automatically driven by line shaft from the press or drying oven. A counter-shaft is built in for simple connection to the main drive shaft for the printing line.
Superb surface finish on all rollers, ensuring long life and excellent film coverage of the sheet, the chilled impression roller is ground to a finer finish than on most competitive makes, ensuring that the back of the lacquered sheet is kept absolutely clean.
Well proven twin scraper system, with simple, positive adjustment of the scraper blades, keeps the underside of the sheet completely free of contact with the coating material. The scraper blades can be easily removed for cleaning.
Fountain rollers can be individually adjusted, the setting being shown on dials graduated in degrees of .001″ (0.025 mm). Settings can thus be accurately noted to ensure identical coating thickness when a job is being re-run.
Feed table is precision-ground to eliminate any risk of scratching.
Trouble-free operation is assisted by the sturdy construction of the machine, with all rollers being mounted in long life needle roller bearing boxes or self-aligning ball bearings.
Simple handwheel adjustment of the scraper blade makes for easy operation, as does the built-in facility for tripping away the complete fountain unit and returning it without disturbing the settings.”
12. As can be seen from the facts of this case, the imported machinery has been connected to the main drive shaft for the printing line, and used along with the printing machines. Therefore, the machinery in question has to be appropriately classified as machines for uses ancillary to printing under Heading 84.35, which is more appropriate heading. Rule 3 of the Rules for Interpretation of the First Schedule to the Tariff reads “heading which provides the most specific shall be preferred heading providing more general description”. Applying this test, we have to hold that the machinery in question is required to be more appropriately classified under Heading 84.35 and not under general Heading 84.59 and under residuary Heading 84.59(1) “not elsewhere specified”.
13. The learned DR has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Reliable Moulders (supra), we notice that this machine has to been held to be not more appropriately classified under Heading 84.59(1), in view of the nature of its functioning. Therefore, this citation is clearly distinguishable. We notice that the judgment rendered in the case of Nectarine Pharmacy (supra) is more closer for its application for this case as the machinery therein was a printing machines for capsul and tablet and on application of the BTN Notes and applying the Rule 3 of the Rules of Interpretation, the Tribunal held that Heading 84.35, was more appropriate. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and hence we reject the same.