1998 (2) TMI 287 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 59/88-Cus regarding entitlement to benefits for a combined Panasonic Fax Machine with answering system.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA involved the interpretation of Notification No. 59/88-Cus regarding the entitlement to benefits for a combined Panasonic Fax Machine with an answering system. The original authority had denied the benefit of the said Notification, but the respondents succeeded before the lower appellate authority. The reasoning provided by the lower appellate authority highlighted that the imported machine was a combination of two systems, both of which were individually entitled to the benefits of the notification. The denial of benefits by the Assistant Collector was deemed to be based on doubt and unsound reasoning. The Tribunal clarified that the combined machine, even though not explicitly mentioned in the notification list, should be entitled to the benefits as both individual components were covered by the notification. The order denying benefits was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.

The Revenue appealed the decision, arguing that exemption notifications must be strictly construed. They contended that since the combined machine was not specifically covered by the table in Notification No. 59/88-Cus, the benefits were rightfully denied. The Revenue also cited cases where similar benefits were not granted in comparable circumstances. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's arguments, stating that when both the Fax Machine and Telephone Answering Machine were separately entitled to the benefits of the notification, there was no reason not to extend the benefits to a combined machine that incorporated both functionalities. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeals and dismissed them.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, emphasizing that the combined Panasonic Fax Machine with an answering system should be entitled to the benefits under Notification No. 59/88-Cus since both individual components were covered by the notification. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments regarding strict construction of exemption notifications and granted the appellants the consequential benefit of the notification.