Per Shri V.P. Gulati :

The issue in the appeal relates to the classification of the goods which have been described as "High Voltage test transformers, Current transformers, capacitor voltage transformers and balancing transformers".

2. The learned lower authority has held that the goods to be assessable under tariff heading 85.04. While the assessee seeks the classification of the same under tariff heading 85.43. The tariff heading 85.04 reads as under :-

"ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS, STATIC CONVERTERS (FOR EXAMPLE, RECTIFIERS) AND INDUCTORS."

The tariff heading 85.43 on the other hand reads as under:-

"ELECTRICAL MACHINES AND APPARATUS, HAVING INDIVIDUAL FUNCTIONS NOT SPECIFIED OR INCLUDED ELSEWHERE IN THIS CHAPTER."

3. The learned advocate for the appellant Shri Jagadesan has pleaded that the item could not be classified under tariff heading 85.04 for the simple reason that these transformers are not used in the manner as known to the trade and are for certain specific uses. He has pleaded the goods do not pass the muster of a transformer in the trade parlance test. He has pleaded that normally the transformers as are understood in the trade are those which are used for performing the function of change in voltage by stepping-up or stepping down or likewise for the current. He has pleaded the appellant's equipments although function on the principle of a transformer, are used specifically between the normal transformer and the machines to ensure a steady voltage which can be measured or tested. He has pleaded, in this back ground, these are not on line apparatus for supply of the current at the desired voltage and are in the nature of the machine or apparatus which is used between the normal transformer and the machines.

4. He has pleaded by reason of its usage, these should be taken to be performing an individual function by ensuring a desired rated supply of current. He has pleaded that for this reason, therefore, the learned lower authority was in error having assessed the goods under tariff heading 85.04. He has also urged that the demand which was originally raised beyond the period of 6 months. Though it has been held to be demandable for a period of 6 months, it should not have been made retrospectively and the revised classification should have been made applicable prospectively.

5. Heard the JDR for the department. He has pleaded that it is seen from the catalogue and the write-up which has been submitted from an expert, the goods or the apparatus perform the function of transformer only. He has pleaded that in this view of the matter if the whole thing is housed in one shell what has to be seen is functionally whether the item in question can be taken to be a transformer. He has pleaded it makes no difference if the transformers in question answers to a specific use. He has also referred us to the explanatory notes under HSN. He has pleaded it is clearly set out thereunder that all kinds of transformers are covered under tariff heading 85.04. Regarding the limitation, the revenue has appealed before us. He has pleaded that the ground taken is that the heading classified would applicable for all the passed clearances. He, however, could not point out how any element of suppression held against the appellants as such.

6. We have considered the pleas made by both the sides. We observe the admitted position is that the item in question functions on the principle of a transformer i.e. the change in voltage is brought about by the uses of primary coils and secondary coils by the process of induction. In the present case both the primary & secondary coils are housed in one shell. It is seen from the "Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers" edited by Donald G. Fink that there two types of transformers in common use which are covered under the heading transformers.

7. The term "transformer" as set out in "Mcgraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical terms" is as under :-

"transformer (ELECTROMAG) An electrical component co