9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Classification under Notification No. 125/86, Benefit entitlement under different notifications, Interpretation of Supreme Court judgment Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal arises from a common order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The main issue for consideration is whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Sl. No. 32 of Notification No. 125/86, which covers goods falling under Chapter 94, specifically referring to a Multi-layer coater/extruding machine. The lower authorities denied the exemption under this notification, citing that the goods were assessed under Heading 98.01, covered by Notification 132/85, which is specific to goods under that heading. The Tribunal analyzed the case in light of a Supreme Court judgment interpreting the proviso to Notification No. 132/85. The Supreme Court's interpretation highlighted that if goods are classifiable under a different heading with a specific benefit under any notification, that benefit cannot be denied to the importer. In this case, although the goods were initially classified under Heading 98.01 due to being imported under the Project Import (Regulations) Act, they are rightfully classifiable under Chapter 84. Therefore, as per Sl. No. 32 of Notification No. 125/86, the imported goods should be entitled to the benefit of the said Notification, as clarified by the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case involving horological machinery. The Tribunal emphasized that the exemption under the project imports notification should not affect the exemption granted under any other notification. The Tribunal found the lower authorities' denial of the benefit under the horological notification erroneous, as the goods, being horological machines, were entitled to the exemption under that notification regardless of the initial classification under Heading 98.01. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and a refund was ordered to be made in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals, providing consequential relief as necessary. The decision was based on the correct interpretation of the notifications and the precedent set by the Supreme Court, ensuring the appellants received the entitled benefit under Notification No. 125/86.
|
