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 - 1997 (2) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1997 (2) TMI 286 - AT - Customs

Issues:
1. Classification of imported Rotors and Motor case for countervailing duty under Customs Tariff Heading No. 85.01(2) and Tariff Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff Act.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 172/77 for exemption eligibility.
3. Determination of whether the imported goods are electric motors or component parts of motors.

Analysis:
1. The Appellants imported Rotors and Motor case and sought assessment under Customs Tariff Heading No. 85.01(2) for countervailing duty. The Assistant Collector contended that these components constituted complete motors, disqualifying them from exemption. The Collector (Appeals) rejected their claim of time bar and unsubstantiated claims under Tariff Heading 68.

2. The Appellants argued that the goods were component parts of motors, not complete motors, and thus eligible for exemption under Notification No. 172/77. They highlighted past exemptions under the notification and Central Excise Tariff Act Heading 68. They presented evidence, including a certificate, to support their claim that the goods were micro motors for gramophone record players, falling outside the purview of the relevant tariff item.

3. The Revenue contended that the imported goods were electric motors, challenging their eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 172/77. The Tribunal analyzed the notification's language, which exempted goods falling under a specific sub-heading except for certain motors, to determine the applicability of the exemption.

4. The Tribunal examined the classification and exemption criteria, emphasizing that the rules of interpretation applied only to the Customs Tariff Act Schedule, not exemption notifications. It concluded that the imported goods were components of D.C. Motors, not complete motors, based on the plain language of the exemption notification and relevant tariff items. The explanation to Tariff Item 30D clarified the exclusion of motors designed for specific uses, supporting the Tribunal's decision to classify the goods under Central Tariff Heading 68.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the previous order, allowing the appeal based on the classification of the imported goods as components of D.C. Motors eligible for exemption under Notification No. 172/77. The decision granted the Appellants consequential relief in accordance with the law.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision in favor of the Appellants.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates