9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of glass lined equipment and fabrication under tariff item 68 for exemption under Notification No. 234/82-C.E.
In this case before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the issue revolved around the classification of glass lined equipment and fabrication for the purpose of claiming exemption under Notification No. 234/82-C.E. The respondents contended that their product fell under tariff item 68 and was eligible for the said exemption, a claim upheld by the Collector (Appeals). The Revenue, however, appealed this decision, arguing that the products were not enamelware but rather machinery parts due to their size and nature. The Tribunal referred to previous cases to ascertain the meaning of "enamelware" and analyzed various dictionary meanings of the term "ware" to determine its applicability to the subject goods. The Tribunal concluded that "ware" is typically associated with articles sold as readymade items across the counter, not with large machinery parts made to order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Collector (Appeals) order and allowed the Revenue appeals. The central issue in this case was the classification of glass lined equipment and fabrication under tariff item 68 for exemption under Notification No. 234/82-C.E. The respondents claimed their product was enamelware and thus eligible for exemption, a decision upheld by the Collector (Appeals). The Revenue contended that the products were machinery parts, not enamelware, due to their size and nature. The Tribunal examined the term "enamelware" in light of previous cases and dictionary meanings of "ware" to determine its applicability to the subject goods. The Tribunal concluded that "ware" typically refers to readymade saleable articles, not large machinery parts made to order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Collector (Appeals) order and allowed the Revenue appeals. The Tribunal analyzed the term "ware" in the context of articles sold across the counter as readymade saleable items and concluded that it did not apply to large machinery parts or equipment made to order. This interpretation led the Tribunal to set aside the Collector (Appeals) decision and allow the Revenue appeals. The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that "ware" is associated with articles sold as readymade items, not with machinery parts specifically manufactured for particular machines. The Tribunal referred to previous cases and dictionary meanings to interpret the term "ware" and its application to the subject goods. The Tribunal found that "ware" typically refers to articles sold across the counter as readymade saleable items and does not encompass large machinery parts or equipment made to order. This interpretation guided the Tribunal in setting aside the Collector (Appeals) decision and allowing the Revenue appeals. The Tribunal's decision was grounded in the understanding that "ware" is generally associated with items sold as readymade articles, not with machinery parts manufactured for specific orders.
|
