1990 (8) TMI 251 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Exemption Notification No. 154/86-Cus., dated 1st March 1986.
2. Classification of imported Nimonic Shear Cutting Blades.
3. Financial position of the respondents.
4. Relevance and binding nature of the Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. judgment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Exemption Notification No. 154/86-Cus., dated 1st March 1986:
The respondents imported Nimonic Shear Cutting Blades for use in shearing machines and claimed assessment under Heading 8208.00 read with Notification No. 154/86-Cus. The Assistant Collector denied the benefit of the exemption notification, but the Collector (Appeals) extended it. The revenue, aggrieved by this decision, appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the exemption notification does not apply to goods not specified therein, citing the Bombay High Court judgment in Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India.

2. Classification of Imported Nimonic Shear Cutting Blades:
The primary issue was whether the exemption notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act applies to parts of machines. The applicant argued that the machines were specified under Heading 8462.49 and the goods qualified under Heading 82.08, specifically 8208.10. The respondents contended that the same rate should apply to parts as to machines, referencing Section 12 of the Customs Act and various judgments supporting their position.

3. Financial Position of the Respondents:
The financial position of the respondents was argued to be very sound by both Shri V. Sridharan and Shri Sanjay Grover, advocating for the rejection of the stay applications on this basis.

4. Relevance and Binding Nature of the Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Judgment:
The applicant heavily relied on the Vishal Electronics judgment, which held that exemption notifications cannot be construed to apply to unspecified goods. However, the respondents countered that this judgment is sub silentio and not binding, presenting contrary judgments and arguing that the Tribunal should not follow the Vishal Electronics precedent.

Tribunal's Analysis and Conclusion:
The Tribunal considered both sides' arguments and the financial soundness of the respondents. It noted that the binding effect of the Vishal Electronics judgment is arguable and that the matters are sub judice. The Tribunal concluded that prima facie merits in favor of the revenue are arguable but did not justify granting a stay. Consequently, the eight stay applications were dismissed, and early hearing was ordered for the appeals on 19th October 1990. The Tribunal emphasized that interlocutory orders must consider the specific facts and circumstances of each case.