9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported goods under specific tariff headings, distinction between bushes and bearings, applicability of Supreme Court judgment on classification, interpretation of Notification No. 281/76-Cus, consideration of parts classification under different headings.
In this case, the appellants imported bearings and bushings classified under Heading 84.62(2) but claimed a refund for two bushes as tractor parts under Heading 87.04/06, which was rejected. The appeal contended that the goods were exclusively used for tractors and should be classified as tractor parts, distinct from bearings. The Advocate for the appellants cited a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the difference between bushes and bearings based on their functions, supported by a catalogue description of the goods as tractor bushes. The Revenue representative argued that the catalogue was from a manufacturer, while the invoice indicated purchase from traders, and since bushes were not specified in any Tariff item, they should be classified under Heading 84.62 due to similar functions as bearings. Reference was made to a Tribunal order upheld by the Supreme Court interpreting Notification No. 281/76-Cus, asserting the Tribunal's classification decision's validity. Upon reviewing the submissions and judgments, the Tribunal had initially classified bushes and bearings under the same heading due to similar functions, relying on the McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that even if two articles have the same functions, they are distinct if known by different names in the market. The Supreme Court's finding emphasized the separate identity of bushes and bearings despite similar functions. The Tribunal's classification of bushes under Heading 84.63 was overturned by the Supreme Court, which held that bushes should be treated as parts of the articles in which they are used. Following this precedent, the appellants' claim that the goods should be classified as parts of tractors under Heading 87.04/06 was accepted. The Supreme Court's decision clarified that the identity of the parts was clear, even if the catalogue and invoice were from different sources, as the goods were specifically listed in the manufacturer's catalogue. Consequently, the lower Appellate authority's order was set aside, and the appeal was granted with consequential relief.
|
