Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 1990 (8) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1990 (8) TMI 234 - AT - Customs

Issues:
Classification of product under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and applicability of customs Notification No. 196/84 dated 7-7-1984.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of Product and Applicability of Customs Notification

The appeals involved a product named "XLPE compound HFDM-0595-BK" imported by the appellants, classified under Heading 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The dispute centered around the applicability of customs Notification No. 196/84 dated 7-7-1984. The appellants argued for the notification's application, while the Revenue contested it. The lower authorities determined that the product was for semi-conductive shielding of power cables, not for insulation, impregnation, or filling purposes, thus ruling out the notification's applicability.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Notification and Manufacturer's Literature

The notification exempted cable insulating, impregnating, and filling compounds from excess customs duty. The appellants presented manufacturer's literature describing the product as a crosslinkable polyethylene copolymer for semi-conductive shielding of power cables. They argued that the product's use was for insulation based on the literature's content. Reference was made to industry handbooks and chemical technology encyclopedias to support the contention that the product was suitable for insulation purposes.

Issue 3: Arguments and Counterarguments

The appellants emphasized that the product possessed the necessary properties for insulation, while the Revenue contended that the product, being cross-linkable and not cross-linked, was unsuitable for insulation at the time of import. The debate revolved around whether the product met the criteria for insulation compounds as per industry standards and chemical compositions. The Revenue highlighted distinctions between semi-conductor applications and commercial power cable insulation.

Judgment and Conclusion:

After considering the contentions and evidence, the Tribunal found that the subject product was indeed a cable insulating compound eligible for the benefits of the customs notification. The product's description, application in insulation shielding, and formulation for cable use led to the conclusion that it fell within the scope of the notification. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants, granting them consequential relief.

This detailed analysis highlights the key issues, arguments, interpretations, and the ultimate decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal in the case.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates