9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Import of Roundness Checking Instruments and Roughness Checking Instruments under specific exemptions. Interpretation of Notification No. 161/86 and Notification No. 34/88. Relationship between functions of roundness and straightness measurement. Scope of exemption for instruments with specified functions. Detailed Analysis: The appeal in this case challenges the order-in-original issued by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi, regarding the import of Roundness Checking Instruments and Roughness Checking Instruments under specific exemptions. The authorities held that the Roundness Checking Instrument was not eligible for the benefits under Notification No. 161/86 and was not covered under the Import Policy. Similarly, the Roughness Checking Instrument was also not covered under the relevant notifications. The appellants sought clearance under specific categories but were denied the exemptions they claimed. The argument presented by the Learned Consultant for the appellants focused on the relationship between the functions of measuring straightness and roundness. It was contended that straightness is a function of roundness and that the instruments in question were capable of measuring both parameters. The consultant referred to a certificate from the National Physical Laboratory supporting the interrelation between roundness and straightness. The consultant also emphasized that the mere fact that an instrument can measure more than just roundness should not be a basis for denying the exemption, citing precedents where similar principles were upheld by the Tribunal. On the other hand, the argument put forth by the Learned DR for the revenue highlighted the specific functions exempted under the relevant Notification. It was contended that if the instruments performed functions beyond those specified in the Notification, they would not qualify for the exemption. The intention behind the exemption was seen as permitting instruments for specific functions and not for multi-purpose use. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal referred to previous judgments to support its decision. It was noted that the benefit of an exemption should not be denied solely because an instrument can perform functions beyond those specified in the Notification. The Tribunal distinguished cases involving very sophisticated machines and clarified that in the present case, where functions were interrelated, the benefit of the exemption should not be withheld. Additionally, it was observed that the instruments in question fell within the categories specified in the Import Policy, further supporting the appellants' position. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original order and allowed the appeal, granting the appellants any consequential relief as per the law. The judgment emphasized the interrelation of functions and the importance of considering the specific categories under which the instruments were imported.
|
