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 - 1994 (1) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1994 (1) TMI 150 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:

1. Classification of imported goods as "parts" or "raw materials" u/s Notification No. 155/86-Cus.
2. Validity of the D.G.T.D. certificate for claiming exemption.

Summary:

Issue 1: Classification of Imported Goods

The appellants filed Bill of Entry No. 4858 dated 16-11-1991 for the clearance of Membrane Support Substrates, Product Carrier, and Casting Powder, claiming classification under Tariff Heading 8421.99 as parts of R.O. Membrane System (Water Treatment Plants) and sought concessional duty u/s Notification No. 155/86-Cus. The Assistant Collector denied this, stating the goods in running length were "raw materials" and not "parts." The Collector (Appeals) reversed this, holding that cutting the rolls to size did not constitute manufacture.

The Tribunal examined whether the imported goods in running length could be deemed as parts eligible for exemption. It was noted that goods must be assessed in the form they are imported. The Tribunal referred to the dictionary definitions of "part" and "raw material," concluding that the imported rolls, which required cutting to be used as parts, were "raw materials" and not "parts." Therefore, the goods did not qualify for exemption u/s Notification No. 155/86-Cus.

Issue 2: Validity of the D.G.T.D. Certificate

The respondents argued that the D.G.T.D. certificate, which was filed, should grant them exemption. The Tribunal noted that the Assistant Collector must be satisfied that the goods are parts required for the specified purpose. Since the Assistant Collector classified the goods as raw materials, the primary requirement of the notification was not met. The Tribunal also found that the D.G.T.D. certificate did not clearly indicate whether the items were parts or raw materials, thus it could not support the respondents' claim for exemption.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, holding that the imported goods were "raw materials" and not eligible for exemption u/s Notification No. 155/86-Cus.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates