1998 (3) TMI 623 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under Customs Notifications, Benefit of Notification No. 96/91-Cus. vs. Notification No. 59/88-Cus., Interpretation of exemption notifications, Applicability of specific vs. general entry in notifications.

Detailed Analysis:

The judgment involves two appeals by the Revenue against orders passed by the Collector, Customs (Appeals) in New Delhi and Hyderabad, concerning the classification of goods under Customs Notifications. The goods were described differently by importers but found to be 'optical time domain reflectometer' upon examination.

The main issue revolves around the benefit claimed by the respondents under Notification No. 96/91-Cus. and Notification No. 59/88-Cus. The Asstt. Collector denied the benefit of the former but allowed the latter. The Collector, Customs (Appeals) granted the benefit of Notification No. 96/91-Cus. at serial No. 53, covering 'automatic testing or marking or printing or typing machine.'

During the hearing, the Revenue's representative argued that as the goods were specifically described in Notification No. 59/88-Cus., there was no need to consider Notification No. 96/91-Cus. However, the respondents' advocate contended that the goods were covered by both notifications, and the importers chose the more beneficial one, citing relevant case law.

The Tribunal analyzed the notifications and found that 'optical time domain reflectometer' was specifically covered by Notification No. 59/88-Cus., while the description in Notification No. 96/91-Cus. was general. It held that when a specific entry exists, goods should be classified under that entry over a general one.

The Tribunal rejected the argument that the importers could choose any beneficial notification, emphasizing that both notifications were not equally applicable to the goods. It distinguished a Supreme Court decision cited by the respondents, stating it was not relevant in this case.

Referring to a decision by the Tribunal in another case, the Tribunal highlighted the principle that when two notifications are in force simultaneously, the one beneficial to the assessee should apply. It cited relevant legal interpretations emphasizing the need to interpret exemption provisions in favor of reducing tax incidence or expanding the scope of exemptions.

Ultimately, the Tribunal disagreed with the Collector, Customs (Appeals) and reinstated the orders-in-original passed by the adjudicating authorities, allowing the appeals filed by the Revenue. The judgment underscores the importance of specific vs. general entries in exemption notifications and the need to interpret them in a manner favorable to the taxpayer.