9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 121/92-Cus. for auxiliary duty on imported apparatus. 2. Classification of the imported apparatus under Tariff Heading 90.22 or 90.30. 3. Scope of Clause (c) of Explanation 6 to the notification regarding instruments for measuring X-rays. Analysis: Issue 1 - Interpretation of Notification No. 121/92-Cus.: The case involved a dispute over the benefit of Notification No. 121/92-Cus. for auxiliary duty on an imported apparatus used for examining crystalline structure and chemical composition. The lower appellate authority allowed the benefit based on a broad interpretation of the notification, emphasizing that concessional duty cannot be denied based on extraneous considerations. The Revenue appealed this decision, arguing that the apparatus did not fall under the specific entry in the notification for electrical measuring instruments. However, the Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision, emphasizing the need to interpret notifications based on actual words used without unnecessary restrictions. Issue 2 - Classification under Tariff Heading 90.22 or 90.30: The Revenue contended that the imported apparatus should fall under Tariff Heading 90.30 based on the Explanation 6 to the notification, which defined instruments for measuring X-rays. However, the respondents argued that the apparatus, incorporating an X-ray tube for studying crystalline structure, fell under Tariff Heading 90.22. The Tribunal agreed with the respondents, noting that the apparatus's use of a radiation source did not exclude it from being covered by Clause (c) of Explanation 6, which was broadly worded to include instruments with or without a radiation source. Issue 3 - Scope of Clause (c) of Explanation 6: The crux of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of Clause (c) of Explanation 6 to the notification, which referred to instruments for measuring X-rays. The Revenue argued that this clause should be limited to instruments falling under Tariff Heading 90.30, excluding those under Tariff Heading 90.22. In contrast, the respondents asserted that the clause did not specify the exclusion of apparatus with a radiation source, leading to a broader interpretation. The Tribunal sided with the respondents, emphasizing that the clause's wording did not restrict coverage based on the presence of a radiation source, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision to grant the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 121/92-Cus. for the imported apparatus used for studying crystalline structure and chemical composition, emphasizing a broad interpretation of the relevant clauses and notifications without unnecessary restrictions.
|
