ORDER
G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. The captioned appeal is against the finding of the ld. Collector (Appeals) holding that the product described is Coffee Roasting Plant under Chapter Heading 84.17(2).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants imported coffee roasting plant and claimed classification under sub-heading (1) of Heading 84.17 of the CETA, 1975. The deptt. alleged that the imported goods were classifiable under sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.17 and accordingly raised a less charge demand against the appellants. The appellants explained that the product was not classifiable under Heading 84.17(2) as this heading covers machinery and equipment for food and drinks whereas the coffee is neither a food nor a drink. After careful consideration of the submissions made, the lower authorities classified the imported product under Heading 84.17(2) and confirmed the less charge demand.
3. Shri T. Viswanathan, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that in the instant case, the appeal was heard by one Collector (Appeals) whereas the order has been passed by another Collector (Appeals) without giving them an opportunity of being heard. The ld. Counsel submitted that they had made specific submissions which were not taken into consideration by the ld. Collector (Appeals) nor any reason assigned in the order passed for classifying the coffee roasting plant under sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.17 as against sub-heading (1) of Heading 84.17 as claimed by them. The ld. Counsel submitted that admittedly, the imported product was classifiable under Heading 84.17; that the dispute is regarding the classification of the coffee roasting plant in sub-heading (1) or sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.17. He submitted that sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.17 covers machinery and equipment for food and drink. He submitted that the fact is that the roasted coffee is neither food nor drink and therefore, the coffee roasting plant cannot be considered as machinery and equipment for food and drink. In support of his contention, the ld. Counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Limited v. U.O.I. and Ors. reported in 1980 (6) E.L.T. 65 (A.P.) where in the High Court held that coffee-chickory blend is not food and was classifiable under Item 68. The ld. Counsel also cited and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Limited v. U.O.I. and Ors. reported in 1984 (15) E.L.T. 32 (A.P.), the High Court again held that coffee-chickory mixture is neither food product nor food preparation. The ld. Counsel also cited and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 741 in which the Apex Court held that statutory text and the intention of the Parliament are to be harmonised but primacy is to be given to the text in which the intention of the law giver has been expressed. The ld. Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Cadbury-Fry (India) Pvt. Ltd. in Misc. Petition No. 702 of 1971 wherein the Hon’ble High Court had held that it is further clear that the said coca cake by itself does not form an ingredient of human food which can be consumed which in this case would be food drinks or chocolate and that the said article has to undergo an elaborate process before it can be used as an ingredient of the said food products. The ld. Counsel submitted that having regard to the above case-law, the roasted coffee has to go an elaborate process before it could be used as an ingredient for beverage or drink and therefore, it was not machinery and equipment for food and drink, therefore, it should be classified under Heading 84.17(1).
4. Shri G.D. Sharma, ld. DR submitted that the plant is called coffee roasting plant; that coffee in the common parlance is a drink; that all the decisions cited and relied upon by the appellants deal with the products or coffee to interpret whether it was food or food products; that in those decisions it has been held that coffee chickory mixture was neither food nor a food product. He submits that coffee in the common parlance is a drink and therefore, the machinery and equipment imported by the appellants are machineries and equipments for food and drink. He submits that in this view of the matter, the lower authorities have rightly classified it under Heading 84.17(2).
5. Heard the submissions of both sides. On careful consideration of the submissions made and the case-law cited we find that the only point for determination before us is whether the imported goods are machinery and equipment for food and drink or not. We observe that the appellants have cited and relied upon a number of case-law in which the subject dealt with was whether chickory and coffee mixture was a food. In all these decisions, it was held that mixture of coffee and chickory is not food. We also observe in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. cited supra, the hon’ble A.P. High Court held that so far as coffee chickory blend is concerned, there is little doubt that it is a beverage and not food. Thus it is clear that coffee is a beverage and not food. From page 1209 of C.C.C.N. Nomenclature we find that roasting plant has been defined as under:
“These frequently consist of revolving cylindrical or spherical receptacles in which the products to be treated (e.g. coffee beans, cocoa beans, cereals or nuts) are subjected to controlled heat by contact with the heated walls of the containers, or by a direct stream of air forced through the heating medium (e.g. gas or oil burners or coke fires). These appliances usually incorporate devices which keep the products in constant rotation to ensure uniform treatment and to prevent charring. Other types take the form of perforated inclined or rotating shelves in a chamber fed with heated gases.”
6. For purpose of classification, the Apex Court more than once has held that for deciding the tariff classification of a product, the common parlance test should prevail over any other test. In common parlance terms coffee brings into the mind of the consumer a beverage or a drink. We find that the Hon’ble A.P. High Court also held that coffee is a beverage. Even from the detailed description given about roasting plant, it is clear that the imported product is a plant for roasting of coffee. The item roasted in common parlance test is a beverage or a drink, we agree with the lower authorities that imported item is machinery and equipment for food and drink.
7. Now let us examine as to how the product has been described in the Tariff. For the sake of convenience, the entry is reproduced below :
“84.17 Machinery, plant and similar laboratory equipment, whether or
not electrically heated, for the treatment of materials by a process
involving a change of temperature such as heating, cooking, roasting,
distilling, rectifying, sterilising, pasteurising, steaming, drying,
evaporating, vaporising, condensing, or cooling, not being machinery or
plant of a kind used for domestic purposes; instantaneous or storage
water-heaters, non-electrical:
(1) Not elsewhere specified 40%
(2) Machinery and equipment for food and drink other 60%
than those used for treating milk; instantaneous or
storage water-heaters, non-electrical; machinery and
equipment imported for use in airconditioning."
There is no dispute that plant and machinery for roasting is classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.17. We have also held that coffee is a beverage and can be called a drink also, we also observe that machinery and equipment for food and drink will attract classification under sub-item (2) of Chapter Heading 84.17. This is more so because it is a specific entry under 84.17(2). On the contrary we find that entry 84.17(1) is a general entry. It is a well-settled principal of classification that a specific entry should be preferred over a general entry. We also note that while reading any entry in the tariff harmonious construction is to be followed. When we read main entry against Chapter Heading 84.17, we find that plant and machinery for roasting is covered therein. Further it has been provided under sub-entry 84.17(2) that machinery and equipment for food & drink shall be classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.17(2). Reading the description of products in the Chapter Heading 84.17 with the sub-entry (2) of this chapter heading together, we find that the plant & machinery in the instant case will fall under Chapter Heading 84.17(2). In this view of the matter we hold that the goods will be classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.17(2).
8. In the result, the appeal is rejected.