ORDER
Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original dated 4-7-1988 of Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi.
2. The appellants imported a Roundness Checking Instruments and a Roughness Checking Instruments and sought clearance under OGL Appendix I(B) Serial No. 4(15) and 4(16) respectively. The appellants also claimed benefit of exemption under Notification No. 161/86 for Roundness Checking Instruments and Notification No. 34/88 for roughness Checking Instruments. It was held by the authorities below that the roundness Checking Instrument was also suitable for straightness measurement and, therefore, was not eligible for benefit of Notification No. 161/86 and was also not covered under OGL Appendix 1 (B) S. No. 4(15) of the Import Policy. The lower authorities also held against them in regard to the Roundness Checking machine under Notification No. 34/88 and the goods were not covered under OGL Appendix 1(B) S. No. 4 (16). Hence this appeal.
3. Arguing for the appellants, the Learned Consultant submits that the measuring for straightness and roundness are related functions. Straightness is a function of roundness and is normally used in roundness in the Y axes. He also draws out attention to the Additional Collector’s observations that the importer has produced a certificate from National Physical Laboratory which states that the roundness and straightness are interrelated. Referring to their submissions made during the personal hearing, he submits that the term rough roundness includes straightness. In any case the mere fact that an instrument is capable of measuring something more than the mere roundness is no reason for denying the exemption. This principle has been adopted by the Tribunal in series of cases. In support of contention he cites their own case in Escorts Ltd. v. Collector of Customs -1990 (47) E.L.T. 68.
4. Arguing for the revenue, the Learned DR submits that the Notification exempts instruments with specified functions. Instruments carry out functions other than those, in addition to the functions specified in the Notification, the impugned goods would not be covered by the exemption. The intention of exemption is to permit instrument for a specified function and not to allow import of multi-purpose instruments.
5. We have heard both sides. In the case of Escorts Ltd. v. CC, the Tribunal held that merely because the equipment in addition to its use for testing purposes in the automative industry is also usable for general purposes, the benefit of Notification No. 243/78-Cus. cannot be denied. The Tribunal relied upon earlier decision of Tribunal in the case of Andhra Patrika v. Collector of Customs -1983 (13) E.L.T. 1103(T), Collector of Customs v. Living Media (I) Ltd., – Order No. 34/89-B2, dated 31-3-1989 and M/s. TJ. Diamond Chain Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, – Order No. 278/89-B2, dated 18-8-1989. The case of Sukeshan Equipments Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs -1995 (77) E.L.T. 621 and Collector of Customs v. XLO Machine Tools Ltd. -1996 (86) E.L.T. 375 are distinguishable. In those cases very sophisticated machines are imported and it was in that context, the Tribunal denied the benefit of Notification No. 40/78 which cover Jig Boring Machine. In case before us, we find that the functions are basically interrelated and merely because the instrument also carry a function other than those specified in the Notification should not be a ground for denying the benefit. We also find that under Appendix 1 Part B roundness testing machine is covered by Sl. No. 15 and surface finish and roughness testing machine is covered by Sl. No. 16. In view of this, no infringement of ITC regulations also has been made out.
6. In the result, therefore, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. The appellants would be entitled to consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law.