9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Entitlement to Notification No. 49/78 for imported item described as `Micro Hardness Tester' capable of testing hardness by Vickers, Knoop, and Scratch methods. Detailed Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi was against the order of the Collector of Customs, Bangalore dated 13-7-1987. The appellants had requested to submit technical literature for decision-making, and the Tribunal considered the Appeal Memorandum, written submissions, and technical literature received. The issue revolved around an item described as a `Micro Hardness Tester' according to Vicker's with Digital Eye piece as per the bill of entry and invoice. The appellants claimed the benefit of Notification No. 49/78, leading to the question of their entitlement to this Notification. The Collector observed that the imported tester was not merely a Vickers Hardness Tester covered by the Open General License (OGL) but something more, requiring a license for clearance. The goods were confiscated and a fine imposed due to the absence of a license. The Tribunal reviewed the technical material filed by the appellants, highlighting that their instrument could test hardness not only by the Vickers scale but also by other methods like Knoop and Scratch. The discussion included references to previous Tribunal orders, specifically Order Nos. 175-176/90-B2 in the case of Blue Star and the case of Sukeshan Equipment Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the item in question was a hardness testing machine capable of testing by Vickers, Knoop, and Scratch methods. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal observed that the machine, although known as a Vickers Hardness Tester, could measure hardness by multiple methods. However, this did not affect the applicability of Notification No. 49/78, which extended the benefit to Vickers Hardness Testers. Referring to the Blue Star case, where a similar issue was addressed, the Tribunal concluded that the benefit of exemption could not be denied based on the machine's capability to perform tests by more than one method. Therefore, the Tribunal accepted the appeal based on the precedent set by the Blue Star case.
|
