Per S.L. Peeran :

This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 74/93 dated 26.5.93 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Bangalore holding that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of Notfn. No. 390/86 in respect of imported item namely Coffee grinder. The Serial No. 8 of the Notfn. provided exemption to "Coffee roaster and grinder for Coffee curing machinery". The Commissioner in the appeal has held that as the exemption applies specifically to coffee roaster and grinder, it implies that the concession is applicable to a unit which performs both these functions, whereas the subject goods imported is only Coffee Roaster.

2. We have heard both sides in the matter. After a detailed consideration, we are of the considered opinion that the reasoning adopted by the Learned Commissioner in the Order is not sustainable. The reason being that the Coffee Grinder imported by the appellants is undoubtedly for Coffee Curing Machinery. We notice from the Commissioner (Appeals) order that he has observed that the item in question has a weight of 15 Kg Net and 20 Kg Gross as seen form the Literature. He is of the opinion that the machinery is a domestic appliance and it cannot be considered for the purpose of industrial use as also the capacity to grind is only 500 gms per minute. On this count he has held that the Classification claim by the appellants under Chapter Heading 8479.82 is required to be rejected and the Classification under Heading 8509.80 is required to be accepted as the item is only a domestic appliance. On examination of the rival entries, we notice that the Heading 85.09 refers to Electromechanism domestic appliances with self-contained electric motor and Sub-heading 8509.80 refers to other appliances. We are of the considered opinion that the item in question is not a domestic appliance and the reason given by the Collector that the weight of the machine being only 15 Kg net and 20 Kg gross and that its grinding capacity is of 500gms/minute is not sufficient to hold the item to be a domestic one. A machine of this capacity can be an industrial one as well and the literature does not disclose that it is defined for use only for domestic purposes. The appellants have also produced as additional evidence a Certificate issued by Coffee Exporters Association to the effect that, 'Coffee Roaster and Grinder are two separate machineries. Both of them have separate individual functions. The Grinder and Roaster are part and parcel of Coffee Curing machinery.' The appellants have imported the machinery not for domestic use but for industrial use being in the business of Coffee curing. The same has been imported for commercial use and the fact that the machinery is capable of grinding coffee to an extend of 500 gms/minute would show that it can be used continuously. Such continuous use of the grinder to grind 500 gms/minute would be used only by an industrial user and not by a domestic person whose needs could be limited. Therefore the reasonings arrived at by the Commissioner to hold the item to fit into the category of domestic appliance rather than one used for industrial purpose is not based on any evidence or on commercial understanding or on basis of the literature. Therefore, we over-rule the Classification of the item under Sub-heading 8509.80 adopted by the authorities. The other entry which is claimed is under Sub-heading 8479.82. This heading 8479.82 refers to machines and appliances having individual functions not specified or included elsewhere in this Chapter. Under this Sub-heading 8479.82 clearly covers grinding machines amongst others. Hence the claim for classification under this Sub-heading is justified.

3. The Commissioner has denied the benefit of the Notfn. No. 390/86-Cus dated 29.7.86, S.No. 8 of the Notification. The only reason given by the Commissioner for denying the benefit of the Notification is that for satisfying the S.No. 8 of the Notification, the item ought to be both "Coffee Roaster and Grind