9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 93/86-Cus. for concessional rate of customs duty on reflectors for cinematographic projectors. Detailed Analysis: The appeal involved a consideration of whether reflectors for cinematographic projectors were eligible for the concessional rate of customs duty under Notification No. 93/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) had previously noted an anomaly in the wording of the notification, which seemed to limit the exemption to main equipment only, excluding parts of those equipments. The appellant argued that parts of cinematographic projectors, including reflectors, were eligible for exemption under Heading No. 90.07. The Board's circular also supported this interpretation, stating that parts of cinematographic projectors would be eligible for exemption under the notification. The issue revolved around the classification of the goods involved, which were reflectors for cinematographic projectors. It was established that cinematographic projectors and their parts, including reflectors, were classifiable under Heading No. 90.07 of the Tariff. The notification in question provided a concessional rate of customs duty for cinematographic projectors falling under specific headings, and it excluded certain parts specified under Column 4 of the table. Since reflectors did not fall under the excluded items in Column 4 and were classifiable under Heading No. 90.07, they were deemed eligible for the concessional rate of customs duty as per the notification. The Tribunal considered the Board's clarification, which emphasized that parts of cinematographic projectors, including reflectors, were eligible for exemption under the notification. The Tribunal disagreed with the Collector of Customs (Appeals) and held that the reflectors were not excluded parts for the purposes of the notification. Consequently, the appeal was allowed based on the correct interpretation of the notification and the classification of the goods involved. However, the Tribunal noted that any refund would be subject to the observations of the Supreme Court in a specific case. Despite this condition, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, highlighting the importance of correctly interpreting the notification and ensuring that all relevant considerations were taken into account before making a decision.
|
