1. The question for decision in this appeal originally filed as a revision application to the Government of India, is whether 'Funditor Marking Machine' imported by the appellants by B.E. No. 1-559 dated 20-9-1977 should be assessed under heading 84.45/48, as claimed by the appellants or under heading 84.59(1) as done by the Customs authorities.
2. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta rejected the appellants' claim for re-assessment and refund for absence of proper particulars. The Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta by his order dated 29-5-1979 held that the heading 84.45/48 of C.T.A. was not applicable to the goods, hence the present appeal.
3. At the hearing of the appeal, Sh. B.N. Sharma, Consultant for the appellants and Sh. V.M.K. Nair, S.D.R. for the Department were heard.
4. The appellants have filed catalogue of the machine. In the grounds of revision, it is urged that the machine is primarily intended for deep marking tough materials under heavy pressure. Part, serial or code numbers, trade marks, graduations, special lettering or designs can be marked clearly and efficiently. The marking machine is nothing but a stamping/embossing machine worked under pressure, that a marking machine does change the form of the metal worked upon without removing any of the metal, e.g. deep scoring and marking of Gold Clubheads. They have also relied on B.T.N. Explanatory Notes under heading No. 84.45 on page 1325 Volume-Ill and submitted that under heading 'Working Presses', stamping machine has been mentioned specifically. They also urged that in B.T.N. embossing/stamping machines are classified under heading 84.45/48 as machine tools for working metals. The present machine is in no way different from the stamping machine and therefore should be classified under this heading.
5. At the hearing of the appeal, Sh. B.N. Sharma, Consultant representing the appellants reiterated the arguments set out in the grounds of appeal. He showed the Bench a sample of the marking done by the imported machine and forcefully submitted that the machine was rightly classifiable under heading 84.45/48 as claimed by the appellants.
6. On behalf of the respondent, Sh. V.M.K. Nair, S.D.R. defended the order passed by the lower authorities. In particular, he submitted that the machine was not for working the metals but may be for working on metals. It did not change the form or shape of the metals. It also did not remove the metal as was done by engraving machine. Therefore, he argued that the appellants claim for classification under heading 84.4 5/48 was not tenable and the classification done under the Residury heading 84.59 was correct.
7. Both the parties, during the course of arguments relied on the Explanatory Notes to B.T.N. It was not disputed by the respondent that under the B.T.N. embossing and stamping machines are classifiable under heading 'working presses' under heading 84.45/48. The present machine in substance is in no way different from stamping machine. The appellants' claim, therefore, for classification under heading 84.45/48 'Machine tools' for working me tals would have to be accepted.
As a result the appellants' claim for classification of the goods under heading 84.45/48 is accepted with consequential refund to the appellants.