9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification No. 49/78-Cus., dated 01-03-1978 regarding the eligibility of imported goods for concessional duty rate. - Determination of whether the imported machine, Validator-10, with special and standard accessories qualifies as a universal measuring instrument under Sl. No. 9 of the notification. - Assessment of whether the accuracy and functionality of the imported machine meet the requirements specified in the notification. - Comparison of the present case with a previous judgment of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Kinetic Engineering Ltd. v. Collector of Customs. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved an appeal concerning the eligibility of imported goods for concessional duty rate under Notification No. 49/78-Cus., dated 01-03-1978. The case revolved around the import of a 3-Axis dimension checking machine, Validator-10, by M/s. Escorts Limited, claimed to be a universal measuring instrument under Sl. No. 9 of the notification. The Assistant Collector initially rejected the refund claim, stating that the machine's accuracy was insufficient for the intended purpose and required additional accessories for functionality. However, the Appellate Collector accepted the appeal, relying on a previous order and allowing the claim. During the appeal before the Tribunal, the Revenue argued that the imported machine did not meet the criteria specified in the notification and required a computer for operation, thus not qualifying as a universal measuring instrument. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that the machine, along with its accessories, satisfied the conditions of the notification and cited a previous Tribunal judgment supporting their position. After considering the arguments and examining the facts, the Tribunal referred to the description in Sl. No. 9 of the notification, which defined a universal measuring instrument for checking gauges, tools, and components. The Tribunal noted that the imported Validator-10, along with its accessories, aligned with the requirements of the notification. Additionally, the Tribunal referenced the earlier judgment in the case of M/s. Kinetic Engineering Ltd., emphasizing that the imported machine's design and capacity for measurement were crucial, regardless of the presence of optional accessories. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Respondents, concluding that the imported goods met the criteria of Notification No. 49/78-Cus., dated 01-03-1978, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The decision directed the Revenue authorities to implement the order accordingly, granting consequential relief to the Respondents.
|
