HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision Application dated 18 -1 -1980 against order -in -appeal No. C3/1530/1979, dated 18 -7 -1979 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras has been transferred by the Government of India to the Tribunal for disposal in terms of Section 131 -B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

(2.) AN Altitude Test Chamber was imported and assessed under Heading 85.59(1) of the CTA as machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not elsewhere specified. A claim was made for reassessment under Heading 90.28(4) read with 90.16(2) or 90.28(4) read with 90.25 or under any other heading on the strength of a technical write -up from the Production Engineer (Methods). The article is described as a leak proof box suitable for creating vacuum inside the chamber to simulate different altitude conditions on ground to test the operation of barostatic capsule of barostatic time release unit fitted on Martin Baker Ejection Seat used on Ajeet aircraft manufactured by the importers. The Assistant Collector observed that the box is supplied with a vacuum pump and a motor to operate on 230 volts single phase AC supply and does not fall under Heading 90.16(2) or 90.25, but is correctly classifiable as a machine with motor designed to perform individual functions not meant for manufacture or production of any commodity. He, therefore, rejected the claim as inadmissible. The Appellate Collector also held that the goods cannot be classified as testing "instruments of the character referred to under Heading 90.16(2) or 90.25 and the question of classifying them under Heading 90.28(4) read with those two sub -headings did not arise. He upheld the findings of the lower authority.

(3.) IN the prese in appeal it is reiterated that the Altitude Test Chamber is for checking the functions of barostatic time release unit and Brogue Guns of the Ejection seat. They contend that the Appellate Collector has accepted that the original assessment of the item as machines and mechanical appliances is not correct and it will be seen from the technical write -up and sketches of the test equipment that it is a checking/testing equipment and correctly re -assessable against Item 90.28(4) read with 90.25 or under 90.28(4)read with Item 90.16(2) of CTA.