M.N. CHANURKAR, C.J.


This appeal by the Assistant Collector of Customs, the Appellate Collector 'of Customs and Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, is directed against an order of the learned single Judge by which the learned Judge has taken the view that projection bulbs which were component parts of a machinery called Petewe projection from grinding machine model P 7.S.3 D fell for the purposes of customs duty under Item 72(3) of the Indian Customs Tariff and not under Item 60(2) of the same. The nature of the goods is clear from an extract given by the manufacturer for both forms of grinding machines which is reproduced by the learned Judge in the order. The bulbs are 100W bulbs each of which is priced at Rs. 113. They are obviously and admittedly different from the ordinary bulbs used for lighting, though they are of 100W. These bulbs are imported and formed a part of the grinding machine which for effective functioning has to be used with the assistance of the projection lamp. The bulbs are of special shape and quality and are manufactured only to suit a particular, requirement of the projection lamp intended to provide illumination for the grinding machine. The instructions show that the bulb is the projection lamp is used for special purpose. It is stated that a blower is provided to cool the projection lamps, that the blower sucks up fresh air from the small filter at the bottom left-hand side of the ventilation door and that the air is then blown directly into the lamp housing to cool the projection lamp. In the instructions under the heading 'Optical equipment' it is stated that the projection lamp is part of the optical equipment fitted into the grinding machine and the optical part of the machine is composed of a lighting device. This lighting device substantially consists of a projection lamp of 100 W low-voltage special projection lamp which has a concentric coil for the light density and that is fitted into a housing which is provided with cooling rib. The projection lamp housing also contains the condenser and the light is protected to the work piece by a mirror. The learned Judge took the view differing from the departmental authorities, that these instructions indicated that the bulk of a special nature specifically made for a use as a component part of the machinery and that the same cannot be used for the normal purpose of illumination and that without the projection lamp with its cooling filter arrangement, the grinding machine cannot be put to use.


2.The Assistant Collector of Customs held that the projection components, that is, the bulbs in question were assessable under Item 60(2) of the Tariff. The Appellate Collector of Customs confirmed this view and the Joint Secretary to the Government of India also confirmed this view. He took the view that, though the goods may have some special characteristics, nevertheless, they remained projector lamps and were correctly classified under Item 60(2) of the Indian Customs Tariff. Item 60(2) of the Indian Customs Tariff reads as follows :-


"electric lighting bulbs not otherwise specified.".


Item 72(2) of the Indian Customs Tariff which is relevant for our purpose reads as follows :-


"Component parts of machinery as defined in Item Nos. 72, 72(1) and 72(2) and not otherwise specified, only as are essential for the working of the machine or apparatus and have been given for that purpose some special shape or quality which would not be essential for their use for any other purpose but excluding small tools like twist/drills and reamers, dies and taps, gear cutters and hacksaw blades:


Provided that articles which do not satisfy this condition shall also be deemed to be component parts of the machine to which they belong if they are essential to its operation and are imported with it in such quantities as may appear to the Collector of Customs to be reasonable.'


The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has contended before us that the projection bulb cannot be called a basic component. Alternatively, it is contended that even as component, it would not fall under Item 72(3) of the Tariff and the last argument was that, with regard to any particular item two interpretations are reasonably possible, then the Court should not interfere with the construction placed upon the entry by the Department. This argument necessitates the consideration of the question as to whether the projection bulb constitutes a basic component or not. Mr. Sundaravaradan has contended on behalf of the Revenue that only that part can become a component which can be treated as a basic constituent part of the machinery. We will proceed on the footing that Mr. Sundaravaradan is right when he says this. Therefore, we have to ascertain from the description of the machinery as to whether this is a basic component part. The purpose of that part of the grinding machine which provides for projection on the screen is to ascertain whether the tools produced by the grinding machine are of the requisite quality. In order to ascertain whether the tools are of the requisite quality, the image of the tool is projected by the projecting apparatus on the screen and that enables the manufacturer to ascertain whether there is any defect in the product or not. Now if this is the object of the projection unit which is made a part of the grinding machine itself, it is difficult for use to see why the parts which constitute this part of the machinery cannot be treated as a basic constituent part. When machinery is utilised by a manufacturer for the production of tools, it is obvious that the manufacturer is interested in seeing that the tools of the requisite quality are produced. If we are to ascertain whether the tools produced are of requisite quality or not and if the manufacturer of the grinding machine has provided for an inbuilt mechanism to ascertain, the quality of the product, it would be no argument to say that a product can be manufactured even without the projection part. There is obviously positive purpose when an inbuilt mechanism is provided in the grinding machine itself. This is enough in our opinion, to make the bulb and the other constituents in the built projecting mechanism the constituent parts of the grinding machine. If this is the nature of the bulbs which are indispensable for a proper and effective utilisation of the grinding machine, it will, in our view, specifically, fall under Item 72(3) of the Tariff, because they will be essential for the working of the machine or the apparatus. The bulbs also satisfy the part of Item 72(3) of the Tariff, inasmuch as these bulbs have been given a special shape and are of a special quality, because the filament which is utilised in the bulb is not the filament which is normally utilised in the ordinary bulb used for lighting. The descriptions of the bulbs which are reproduced above show that the filament is a concentric coil for high light density.


3.It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept the contention that the bulb

part is not a basic component and that it would not fall under Item 72(3) of the Tariff. In so far as the last argument is concerned, it appears to us that it is an argument of despair. In so far as the present case is concerned, the view taken by the Departmental authorities, to say the least, appears to us to be clearly perverse because they have merely gone on the capacity of the bulb to give illumination. These bulbs are not intended for illumination as commonly understood. They are special types of bulbs intended to perform special functions for a special purpose. If an unreasonable construction has been placed by the Department, their view must be quashed and set aside by this court. 4.Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500.