Judgment

RANGANATH MISRA, J.-This appeal under Section 130-E of the Customs Act is directed against the decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. New Delhi, by which the Tribunal has reversed the appellate decision of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.

2. The short point involved in this appeal is as to whether the imported "special purpose complex machine" has to be charged to customs duty under item 84.59(1) as claimed by the revenue or under 84.45/48 of the tariff schedule as maintained by the appellant. If the appellants claim is accepted the duty is at the rate of 40 per cent while if the departments stand is maintained it is at the rate of 60 per cent. The Assistant Collector took the view that the imported machine was not manufacturing carburettors and was discharging an individual function of pluggling holes in the carburettor body with the help of lead shots. Therefore, the appropriate entry was 84.59(1) of the Customs Tariff. The appellant challenged the order of the Assistant Collector by preferring an appeal to the Collector (Appeals). He took the view that the imported machine by plugging holes on the carburettor body with the help of lead shots was clearly a machine which was fully conforming to the description of a machine for treating metals inasmuch as it was treating carburettor body and preparing it for being rivetted. The plugging on the carburettor body, the Collector felt, was, therefore, in the nature of treatment on the metallic body for making it rivettable subsequently ; even otherwise also the machine by plugging holes on the carburettor body was conforming to the description of a machine tool as given under heading 84.54/48 of the Customs Tariff. He, therefore, accepted the appellants contention.

3. On further appeal the Tribunal after discussing the standpoint of the two sides came to the following conclusion :

Our considered view is that the function of the machine is to plug the holes of carburettor body. The cutting or trimming operation is incidental to this function as it removes the extruded portion of the lead shots. The function of checking is also a part of the main function of plugging as the object of checking is to ensure that the plugging has been done perfectly to make it air-tight. None of these functions can be considered to be treating metal within the meaning of sub-heading (2) of Tariff Heading 84.58. The function of plugging the holes of carburettor body does not amount to working metal. It does not change the shape or form of the metal. The portion of the machine which cuts the extruded portion of lead shot is not a reaming machine working the internal surface of an existing hole to exact dimension within the meaning of Explanatory Note 84.45(A)(5) of the CCC N (Volume 3), Chapter 84.45. The imported machine in question does not fall within the definition of machine tool given in McGraw Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms as cited by the learned SDR Classification of the impugned machine under Tariff Heading 84.45/48 is, therefore, ruled out. Even by taking all the functions of the machine into consideration, the classification for the purpose of customs duty will have to be determined keeping in view Note 3 in Section XVI and Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 84 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, according to which the principal function will be determining factor. The principal function of this machine is to plug the holes of carburettor body. The machine does not fall under any of the readings of Chapter 84 of the Tariff.

Entry 84.59 of Schedule I provides :

Machines and mechanical appliances, having individual functions, not falling within any other heading of this Chapter :

(1) * * * .. .. 60%

(2) * * * . . . . 40%

The entry is, therefore, a residuary one and indisputably if any other entry applies, application of entry 84.59 is ruled out. The appellant maintains that the appropriate entry to apply to its case is 84.45