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 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1996 (3) TMI 329 - AT - Customs

Issues:
- Denial of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 49/78 for imported 'Surface finish/Roughness Measuring equipment'
- Determination of whether the imported equipment qualifies as testing equipment entitled to the benefit of the Notification

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi arose from the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay's order denying the concessional rate of duty to 'Surface finish/Roughness Measuring equipment' imported by the appellants. The issue was whether the equipment was solely for measuring or also qualified as testing equipment under Notification No. 49/78. The Tribunal considered submissions from both parties, including the Operator's Handbook of the imported item 'Surtronic 3', which provided insights into the equipment's functionality.

The Handbook detailed that the equipment assessed surface roughness using the Ra method, providing a numerical evaluation of roughness irregularities. It explained the measurement process, components of the equipment, and the methodology for determining roughness values. The appellants argued that the imported equipment served both testing and measuring functions simultaneously, essential for determining the quality and suitability of components for use. They contended that the equipment's measurement was absolute, not comparative, and the testing was a result of the measurement conducted.

After reviewing the Handbook and the appellants' arguments, the Tribunal found that the imported equipment indeed functioned as testing equipment for surface finish/roughness. It concluded that the equipment's capability for simultaneous testing and measuring, as demonstrated through the Handbook, qualified it for the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 49/78. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants. The judgment emphasized the importance of substantiating the equipment's testing functionality to avail of duty concessions under relevant notifications.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates