9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (5) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing 87.03 of CTA, 1975. The appellants had claimed re-assessment of the goods under Heading 84.22. The goods under reference Avialift APL-750 Mobile Baggage Conveyor was a versatile, man operated, self propelled vehicles providing rapid loading and unloading of aircraft passenger baggage and light cargo. The learned Assistant Collector had observed that Cranes, conveyor loader, mechanical loaders winches elevating platforms etc. are after mounted on lorries or chassis which are essentially complete and of the automobile type in that they contain all the essential automobile features, including travelling motor, gear box, controls for charging gear braking steering. Such machines (i.e.. lorries or chassis with the machines mounted thereon) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellants want that the assessment should be made under Heading 84.22 for the entire unit. He states that the Customs authorities had wanted a split invoice and as per their requirement the appellants have filed the split-up invoice from the supplier which appears on Page 3 of the Paper Book. As per that invoice the Chassis and general structure is valued at £ 6135.00, hydraulic system is valued at £ 1440.00 and Engine/Transmission etc. at £ 3350.00 totalling £ 10,925.00 for one unit and the price of 8 units was £ 87,400.00. He has pleaded that the revenue has assessed the same under Heading 87.03 for the entire unit and CV duty for the vehicle portion has been levied under Tariff Item 34 of the Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He pleads that the total cost of the imported goods is about Rs. 18 lakhs out of which the cost of the vehicle is 87% and the cost of the conveyor is 13%. He has referred to an earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mineral Exploration Corp. Ltd. v. CC, Bombay and CC, Bombay v. Mineral Exploration Corp. Ltd. (Order Nos. 1239 and 1240/86-B2). Shri Gopinath states that the provisions of CCCN have been adopted in toto in the Customs Tariff Act. He has referred to a judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Sunrise Elec. Corp. v. CC, Bombay reported in 1983 E.L.T. 2465 where the Tribunal had held that it is permissible to refer to the CCCN and explanatory notes therein to decide classification under the Customs Tariff when the latter is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the order-in-original which appears on Page 8 of the Paper Book. He further states that for the purpose of levy of CV duty the Appellate Collector has not applied his mind. He has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal. 6. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. For coming to a proper conclusion for classification we must go through the respective headings under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Relevant headings are reproduced below :- Heading No. Description 84.22 Lifting, handling, loading or unloading machinery, telphers and conveyors (for example, lifts, hoists, winches, cranes, transporter cranes, jacks, pulley tackle bE.L.T. conveyors and teleferics) not being machinery fal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
