Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Collector Of Customs, Bombay vs Saurashtra Chemicals

Supreme Court21 February 1997B.P. Jeevan Reddy · K.S. Paripoornan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

When classifying goods under a tariff heading that specifies the material or substance to be processed by the machinery in question, the court must determine whether the particular substance involved falls within the scope of the material described in that heading before deciding the correct tariff classification, and a tribunal's failure to address this threshold question requires remand for fresh consideration on the merits.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

ORDER
B.P. Jeevan Reddy and K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The Tribunal has held that the machinery in question namely Grinding Discs fall within Tariff Item 84.56 which reads as follows :

__________________________________________________________________________ Heading Sub-heading No. Rate of duty Preferential No. and description standard Areas of Articles __________________________________________________________________________ 84.56 Machinery for sorting, 40% screening, separating, washing, crushing, grinding or mixing earth, stone, ores or other mineral substances, is solid (including powder and paste) form; machinery for agglomerating, moulding or shaping sold mineral fuels, ceramic, paste, unhardened cements, plastering materials or other mineral products in powder and paste form; machinery for forming foundry moulds of sand. __________________________________________________________________________

3. The Revenue's case was that the said goods fall under Tariff Item 84.59 which reads as follows :

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

(1) Not elsewhere specified 60%

(2) Machines and mechanical appliances designed for the production of a commodity, machinery for treating metals, wood or similar materials, for stripping and cutting of tobacco leaf or for cutting or rolling tea leaves, machines for mounting card clothing; nuclear reactOrs.

4. A reading of the Entry 84.56 would show that the machinery, to fall under the said Tariff Item, should be a machinery for inter alia grinding or mixing earth, stone, ores or other minerals substances, in solid (including powder and paste) form.

5. We find from a perusal of the impugned judgment that the Tribunal has not gone into the question nor has it decided the issue whether the Soda Ash falls within the scope of the expression earth, stone, ores or other mineral substances in the said entry. Admittedly, the goods concerned herein are meant for grinding Soda Ash.

6. Without deciding the aforesaid it may not be possible to decide correctly the question of classification. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal of the appeal in accordance with the law. No costs.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free