1992 (4) TMI 151 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim for imported goods under Notification No. 114/80.
2. Interpretation of "photocomposing machines with keyboards" under the notification.
3. Discrepancy regarding the presence of an integrated keyboard in the imported item.
4. Consideration of catalogues and descriptions to determine the nature of the imported item.
5. Application of the exemption under Notification No. 114/80 based on the item's classification.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay's decision to reject the refund claim for imported goods, specifically 'Stempel typomatic daylight operating photo composer,' seeking exemption under Notification No. 114/80. The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) denied the exemption, stating that the goods did not qualify as they were not used with keyboards. The appellant argued that the notification did not specify a separate keyboard and highlighted that the imported item was a photocomposing machine with an integrated keyboard, supported by catalogues and descriptions. The Department contended that the machine was without a keyboard, and the new catalogue's details could not be relied upon. The Tribunal examined the catalogues and descriptions, concluding that the imported item indeed had an integrated keyboard, aligning with the description in the invoice. Therefore, the Tribunal found the imported item to be a photocomposing machine with a keyboard, making it eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 114/80.

The Tribunal scrutinized the nature and operational function of the imported item, emphasizing the presence of an integrated keyboard. The Tribunal noted that the new catalogue provided a more descriptive view of the item, confirming its classification as a photocomposing machine with an integrated keyboard. By comparing the details in the catalogues and the invoice description, the Tribunal determined that the imported item met the criteria outlined in Notification No. 114/80 for exemption, as it was classified as a photocomposing machine with a keyboard. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous order and allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief to the appellants.

In light of the detailed examination of the imported item's features and the provisions of Notification No. 114/80, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of the exemption was unjustified. By establishing that the imported item was a photocomposing machine with an integrated keyboard, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's claim for exemption under the notification. The decision to allow the appeal and provide consequential relief was based on the Tribunal's determination that the imported item fell within the scope of the exemption criteria specified in the notification, emphasizing the presence of an integrated keyboard as a defining factor for classification.