1989 (10) TMI 144 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claims filed by M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. for oxygen regulators, cylinders, and hose L.P. as aircraft parts.
2. Rejection of refund claims by the Assistant Collector.
3. Acceptance of refund claims by the Collector (Appeals) based on the equipment's necessity for high-altitude flying.
4. Appeal by the revenue challenging the Collector (Appeals) decision.
5. Examination of the equipment's specific usage in helicopters.
6. Interpretation of Customs Notification No. 206/76 for aircraft parts and military stores.
7. Dismissal of the revenue's appeal by the Tribunal.
8. Stay applications related to the appeals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The case involved five refund claims by M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. for oxygen regulators, cylinders, and hose L.P. as aircraft parts entitled to a customs duty benefit under Notification No. 206/76-Cus. The Assistant Collector rejected the claims, stating these items were not aircraft parts. The respondents contended these were essential for high-altitude flying, supported by the flight manual of Cheetah Helicopters.

2. The Collector (Appeals) accepted the respondents' arguments, considering the equipment as non-interchangeable parts for military aircraft or military stores under the customs notification. The revenue appealed this decision, arguing that the items were not essential aircraft parts and lacked evidence of being purchased for the Ministry of Defence.

3. The Tribunal examined technical opinions confirming the specific design of the oxygen system for helicopter usage, emphasizing its baro-anemometric regulators tailored for altitudes above 3000 meters. The Tribunal also referenced the relevant customs notification exempting aircraft parts and military stores from duty.

4. Relying on the Supreme Court precedent regarding notification benefits, the Tribunal concluded that the imported items fell under military stores as per Sl. No. 4 of Notification No. 206/76-Cus, despite the initial claim under Sl. No. 1. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the Collector (Appeals) decision.

5. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the necessity for the Assistant Collector to verify the possession of a valid duty exemption certificate issued by the Defence Ministry for granting refunds. The Tribunal dismissed the stay applications related to the appeals, finding no merit based on previous tribunal rulings.

6. In summary, the Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals) decision, emphasizing the specific design and usage of the equipment for helicopters, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal and the related stay applications.