9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) is not correct in law as the benefit of Notification No. 188/87-Cus. has been extended to the respondents incorrectly. He has stated that the terms of Notification had to be construed strictly. The goods imported are different to those mentioned in the Notification No. 188/87. The goods imported by the respondents are stated below :- (i) 12V DC 50 ma; (ii) 30V DC 0.1A and (iii) 30V DC 0.3A. 2. Shri M.S. Arora, the learned JDR stated that in terms of Notification No. 188/87-Cus., dated 29th April, 1987 benefit is available only to switches with contract rating less than 5 amps at 250 volts AC, or DC. The goods imported by the respondents are different to those mentioned at Serial Numb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al errors, or slips in drafting, will sometimes be corrected. He has also referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jain Engineering Company v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 3 (SC) where the Supreme Court had held that although the parts are not mentioned under Heading No. 84.06, by necessary implication and in the context of the Notification, it includes the parts of the engine. We are, therefore, of the view that the parts of the engine or engines, mentioned under Heading No. 84.06, will get the benefit of exemption under the Notification. He has pleaded for the rejection of the stay application on the technical ground for not proper signing as well as on merits. 4. We have heard both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acie good case. The Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise Customs, Pondicherry v. New Horizon Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. reported in 1980 E.L.T. 10 (Madras) had held that the Court is not to supply the deficiency in the notification. The decision in the case of Jain Engineering Company v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) does not help the respondents as the facts are different. In view of the above discussion we are of the view that prima facie revenue has got a good case on merits. Accordingly, we stay the impugned order in Appeal No. C25AP/461 to 463/88, dated 24th January, 1989. During the course of arguments Shri V. Sridharan, the learned Advocate has stated that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
