9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification No. 104/90-Cus. for concessional rate of duty. - Determination of whether 'Elastograph' qualifies for the lower rate of duty prescribed for 'Rheometer'. - Examination of the functional similarity between 'Rheometer' and 'Elastograph'. - Evaluation of technical and scientific evidence supporting the classification of 'Elastograph' as 'Rheometer'. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of Notification No. 104/90-Cus. and whether the 'Elastograph' imported by the respondents qualified for the lower rate of duty meant for 'Rheometer'. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs initially denied the concessional rate for 'Elastograph', stating it was distinct from 'Rheometer'. However, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) overturned this decision and directed the benefit of the notification to be extended to the 'Elastograph'. The Department argued that since the item imported was labeled as 'Elastograph' and not 'Rheometer', it did not qualify for the concessional rate specified for 'Rheometer'. The Department contended that the exemption was specific to 'Rheometer' and could not be extended to other machines, even if their functions were similar. The Department emphasized that the wording of the notification clearly indicated that the lower rate could only be granted to 'Rheometer'. In contrast, the respondents presented evidence showing the functional similarity between 'Rheometer' and 'Elastograph'. They provided literature from the manufacturers of both machines, demonstrating that both were used for testing the cure characteristics of rubber compound. Certificates from independent research institutions further supported this claim. The respondents argued that the term 'Rheometer' was used by one company to describe their product, but the intention of the Government was not to limit the exemption to a specific manufacturer. Upon review, the Tribunal found merit in the respondents' arguments. They examined technical literature, certificates from experts, and affidavits supporting the contention that 'Rheometer' and 'Elastograph' were essentially the same type of machine, akin to synonyms. The Tribunal agreed that the benefit specified for 'Rheometer' should also be extended to 'Elastograph', given the functional equivalence established through the evidence presented. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Department's appeal, upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to grant the lower rate of duty to the 'Elastograph'.
|
