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 - 1996 (9) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1996 (9) TMI 264 - AT - Customs

Issues:
1. Duty assessment on imported Peristaltic Pump under Heading 84.10(3).
2. Rejection of refund claim based on calculation error and re-assessment under Heading 84.10(1).

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported a Peristaltic Pump assessed under Heading 84.10(3) @ 100% + 40% + 12%. The refund claim was filed due to a calculation error where excess duty was recovered. The authorities rejected the claim without considering this ground, which was surprising as no evidence was needed for this issue. The orders of the A.C. and Collector of Customs did not address this aspect.

2. The appellant argued that the imported Peristaltic Pump should be classified under Heading 84.10(1) @ 40% + 25% + 12% instead of 84.10(3) meant for fuel, oil, or water pumps for internal combustion piston engines. The pump's working principle, described in detail, indicated its classification as a rotary positive displacement type used for various laboratory applications, not related to internal combustion engines.

3. The appellant provided details of the pump's usage in laboratories for pumping abrasive and corrosive solutions, organic solvents, and viscous materials. The Adjudicating Authority and Collector rejected the claim for re-assessment under Heading 84.10(1) citing lack of a catalogue. The appellant explained the unavailability of the catalogue during the original assessment and appeal stages but later produced it, showing the pump's application in process control fields.

4. The appellant's representative highlighted that the Peristaltic Pump imported was not for internal combustion engines but for process control applications, as supported by the catalogue. The pamphlet described the advantages of Peristaltic Pumping, emphasizing its suitability for pharmaceuticals, food processing, and other industries. The model and description of the imported pump confirmed its classification under Heading 84.10(1).

5. Considering the submissions and evidence presented, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contentions. The Peristaltic Pump imported was found to be rightly classifiable under Heading 84.10(1) for process control applications, not under 84.10(3) for internal combustion engine pumps. The appeal was accepted, and relief was granted, with directions to ensure the correct calculation of duty as per the new classification.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates