9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported goods under a concessional duty notification.
The appeal was filed against the lower authority's decision rejecting the claim for a concessional rate of duty on the import of a sharpening machine and its accessory. The appellants imported a machine claimed to be an automatic Helical Gear Cutter Sharpener and an accessory for spur sharp cutting. The lower authority rejected the claim based on discrepancies in the goods' description and classification. The appellants argued that the main machine was for sharpening helical gear cutters and could function as a spur sharp cutter with the attachment. They contended that the machine did not become composite as it could perform both functions separately. The Revenue argued that the goods were model 'D' instead of 'E' as described in the invoice, indicating confusion. The Tribunal examined the invoice, catalog, and literature presented. It noted that type 'D' was for sharpening both helical and spur shaper cutters, while type 'E' was only for helical shaper cutters. The Tribunal found that the machine could perform dual functions separately, not simultaneously, with the attachment for specific functions. It concluded that the goods were not a composite machine and could benefit from the concessional duty notification. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods imported were eligible for the concessional rate of duty under the notification since the machine could perform different functions separately with the attachment. It compared the situation to a sewing machine that could stitch cloth but also stitch leather with a special needle attachment. The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including the catalog and literature, and found in favor of the appellants. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
|
