9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (9) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication for re-assessment of the goods on the ground that the special alloy steel castings imported in rough machined condition are used in the assembly of Steam Turbine after marginal post importation .operation and, therefore, were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 35/79-Cus., read with Interpretative Rule 2(a) of the Customs Tariff Act. 3. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim on the ground that the Heading 73.33/40 of CTA under which the goods were assessed, did not figure in the various headings listed in the Schedule to Notification No. 35/79. 4. The appeal filed before the Appellate Collector was rejected ....... on the ground that as the imported goods were subject to post-importation operations before fitment they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling under Tariff Heading specified therein. 7. We have considered the arguments of both sides. The appellants' request for the application of Rule 2(a) of the Rules for interpretation to interpret the Notification has been considered by us. These Rules, as mentioned therein, are intended for the interpretation of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. They cannot be applied for interpreting a notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, as is the case with Notification No. 35/79. In this context we recall the Judgment of Madras High Court in Witco Match Works, Kalugumalai & Another v. Union of India and Another reported in 1983 (12) E.L.T. 345 (Mad.), wherein the High Court was interpreting an exemption notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere can be no sanction to supply words or apply tools for interpretation, not provided therein, to ascertain the scope and meaning of the Notification. This was the view taken by the Tribunal in Appeal No. 1516/84-B2 (M/s. Guest Keen Williams Ltd., Howrah v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta) in Order No. 192/87-B2, dated 19-2-1987 (1987 (29) E.L.T. 68 (Tri.). In this order the Tribunal held that the Section Notes and the Rules of Interpretation are explicitly intended to be for the interpretation of the Tariff and its various headings, and that it would not therefore be proper to apply those Notes and Rules to the interpretation of a Notification. 10. For these reasons, we reject the arguments of the appellants that Interpretative Rule 2(a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Interpretative Rules and Section Notes in interpreting an exemption notification (vide paras 26 to 33 of the judgment). Where an exemption notification uses the very expression which occurs in the tariff heading to which it relates, there would be a strong case for giving the same meaning to the expression in the notification as it carries in the tariff heading. The present case is however different. What the appellants want is that the scope of the exemption notification should be widened by applying to the notification itself the principle of Interpretative Rule 2(a). I agree that this is not permissible, and therefore join my learned brother in rejecting this appeal.
Sd/-
S. Venkatesan, President. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
