Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1997 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1997 (8) TMI 234 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Eligibility of imported machine for exemption under Notification No. 42-Cus, dated 1-3-1978 as amended. Detailed Analysis: The appeal pertains to the eligibility of a machine imported by M/s. Super House Ltd. for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 42-Cus, dated 1-3-1978 as amended, which provided concessional rate of duty for specific machines used in leather processing industries. The imported machine, described as Hydraulic/Automatic Plating Industry Machine STCM (Sycom) Model PL 1250, was examined by Customs and found to be manually operated for plating. The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, after extensive review, concluded that the machine did not qualify for the exemption under the notification. During the appeal hearing, the appellant contended that the machine's hydraulic pressure, thermostat, and timer features made it automatic, despite the manual base plate operation for leading leather components in Model PL-1250. The notification specifically listed "Hydraulic Automatic Plating Ironing Machine" as eligible for concessional duty, emphasizing the automatic aspect. Reference was made to a Tribunal decision in a similar case where the Tribunal clarified that "automatic" in the context of the notification referred to the plating and ironing processes. Since the base plate in the imported machine required manual operation, it lacked the essential characteristic of automatic plating. The appellant highlighted that another model by the same manufacturer, Model PL 1251, had automatic plating operation, further supporting the distinction. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay's decision, stating that the manual plating operation in the imported machine did not align with the description of a hydraulic automatic plating ironing machine eligible for concessional duty under the notification. With no new evidence to warrant a different outcome, the appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.
|