1997 (6) TMI 107 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellants are entitled to the concessional rate of duty for the imported items under specific notifications.
2. Whether the imported goods, namely rechargeable battery and halogen lamps, qualify for the benefit under a particular notification.

Analysis:
The appellants, importers of medical equipment, imported Pocket Autoscope, Rechargeable battery, and Halogen Lamps, seeking concessional duty rates. The appellant contended that the Pocket Autoscope falls under the category of 'Fibre optic endoscope and accessories' as per a specific entry in the notification. The Managing Director of the Appellant Company argued that the item is covered by the relevant notification and should be granted the benefit thereof. On the other hand, the representatives of the appellant company admitted that they were traders, not manufacturers, and claimed that the rechargeable battery and halogen lamps were spare parts and accessories of opthalmoscope, thus eligible for the benefit under a different notification.

The Department denied the benefit to the appellants and assessed duty at the normal rate. The lower authorities supported this denial based on the interpretation that the rechargeable battery and halogen lamps did not qualify for the benefit under the relevant notification. The Department argued that the imported goods could only be eligible for the notification benefit if they were necessary for the manufacture of goods specified under Sl. No. 1-39, which the appellants were not engaged in as they were traders, not manufacturers.

After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal held that the Pocket Autoscope indeed qualified for the concessional duty rate under the specific notification mentioned. However, regarding the rechargeable battery and halogen lamps, the Tribunal concurred with the lower authorities that these items were spare parts and accessories but clarified that the benefit under the notification could only be availed if they were required for the manufacture of goods specified under Sl. No. 1-39, which was not the case for the appellants who were traders, not manufacturers.

Consequently, the Tribunal modified the impugned order, granting the benefit of the notification for the Pocket Autoscope while denying the same for the rechargeable battery and halogen lamps. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the possibility of consequential relief for the Appellant as per the law.