9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the phrase "component parts" occurring in Notification 77/90 would cover "spare parts" for the purpose of granting of benefit thereunder? 2. Relief. Summary: Issue 1: Interpretation of "Component Parts" vs. "Spare Parts" The appellant imported "Refractory Bricks for Industrial furnace temperature 1760oC" and sought concessional duty u/s Notification No. 77/90. The Collector initially denied this benefit, arguing that the appellant's furnaces were not industrial furnaces and the bricks were not for "Electric Arc Furnace." The Tribunal reversed this, remanding the case to examine if the bricks were component parts of industrial furnaces. Upon remand, the Collector held that the bricks, though refractory and of special quality, were for replacement and thus spares, not components, denying the benefit again. The Larger Bench considered conflicting Tribunal decisions. In Vaz Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, it was held that "component parts" used in initial assembly are distinct from "spare parts" used for replacement. Conversely, in Metal Impacts Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, it was held that "component parts" could include spares if mentioned in isolation. In Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, it was held that "component" indicates the nature of the article, and "spare" denotes its use, thus spares can be components. The Tribunal held that "component" is a genus and "spare" is a species, meaning a component used for replacement. Without restrictive language, "component parts" in the notification should include spares. Therefore, the bricks intended for replacement are covered under "component parts," entitling the appellant to the concessional duty. Issue 2: Relief The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and extending the benefit of Notification No. 77/90 to the appellant for the imported Refractory Bricks intended for use as spare parts. Separate Judgment by Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T): Dhar disagreed with the majority, holding that "component parts" denote parts used in the initial composition of an article, whereas "spare parts" are replacements. He emphasized that the notification's language "for use as component parts" does not cover spares. Dhar upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal, maintaining that the terms "component parts" and "spare parts" are not interchangeable.
|
