9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Benefit of Notification No. 40/Cus., dated 1-3-1978 denied by Collector - Interpretation of "Plastic Extruder above 150 mm sq. diameter" - Whether entire cable extrusion line qualifies for exemption.
Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal arose from an Order of the Collector denying the benefit of Notification No. 40/Cus., dated 1-3-1978 to the appellants. The dispute centered around the import of a "MAILIEFER 152 MM Extrusion Line" from the USA for insulating conductors and jacketing cables. The appellants claimed the benefit of the notification for the imported machinery, which included various equipment besides the plastic extruder. The Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector restricted the benefit to only the "Plastic Extruder" component, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The main contention raised by the appellants was that the entire extrusion line, including essential parts like electrical control drives and ancillary equipment, should be considered as part of the "Plastic Extruder" for the purpose of the Notification. The appellants argued that all components are necessary for the smooth functioning of the extruder, referencing a cable extruder line layout from an electrical cables handbook. However, the Collector (Appeals) emphasized that the Notification specifically mentions "Plastic Extruder above 150 mm sq. diameter" and, therefore, the exemption should be limited to the extruder component only. The Tribunal analyzed the language of the Notification, particularly Sl. No. 14 specifying "Plastic extruder above 150 mm sq. diameter." Despite the appellants importing the entire cable extrusion line consisting of 10 parts, with the extruder being just one component, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities. The Tribunal concluded that the specific mention of "Plastic Extruder" in the Notification precludes extending the benefit to the entire equipment, even if other parts are essential for its functioning. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the rejection of the benefit of the Notification to the imported goods. In summary, the Tribunal's decision hinged on the interpretation of the Notification's language and the specific mention of "Plastic Extruder" above a certain diameter. Despite the appellants' arguments regarding the necessity of all components for the extruder's operation, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to restrict the benefit to the extruder component alone based on the wording of the Notification.
|
