1995 (8) TMI 212 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the term 'shape' in Notification 172/92 to include rivets.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras involved a dispute over the interpretation of Notification 172/92, specifically whether the term 'shape' encompassed rivets imported by the appellants. The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras had allowed the benefit of the notification to the respondents based on past practice and the absence of a clear definition of 'shape' in the notification. The Department, represented by the SDR, argued that rivets should not be considered shapes under the notification as they fall under the category of articles of aluminum, not aluminum itself. The SDR contended that the previous clearances of rivets at a concessional rate did not confer eligibility for the benefit of the notification. On the other hand, the consultant for the respondents argued that rivets should be considered shapes under the notification and had necessary certificates recommending duty concession. The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments and the lower authority's order, which had allowed the benefit to the respondents based on the interpretation of 'shape' and past practice.

The Tribunal analyzed the technical definition of rivets from scientific sources, establishing that rivets are formed articles made of a rod with a head, commonly used in various industries. The Tribunal then delved into the Customs Tariff classification, highlighting the distinction between aluminum and articles thereof. It noted that rivets specifically fall under the heading 'Other Articles of Aluminium' in the Tariff. The Tribunal emphasized that the term 'shapes' in the notification should be understood in the context of aluminum profiles, not articles of aluminum. It pointed out that the deletion of rivets from the notification indicated a deliberate omission by the legislature. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the DGTD certificate could override the clear language of the notification, emphasizing that the DGTD cannot legislate concessions. It concluded that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of the notification, overturning the lower authority's decision and allowing the appeal of the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras clarified the scope of Notification 172/92, ruling that rivets did not fall under the definition of 'shapes' in the notification and, therefore, the appellants were not eligible for the duty concession. The judgment underscored the importance of interpreting legal provisions in line with their specific language and the relevant statutory framework, ultimately upholding the appeal of the Revenue against the lower authority's decision.