9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation i.e. they proceeded on an assumption that clause 1 of the notification is applicable, while the goods imported fall under clause 2 of the notification. He further submitted that clause 2 reads: Apparatus for wireless reception incorporated in a single unit with transmitting apparatus and components thereof. He submitted that DME answers to the description mentioned in clause 2. It is further his case that DME works on the principle of wireless transmitter, and therefore, falls within the meaning of the apparatus mentioned in clause 2. He submitted that the system consists of pulse transmitter and receiver (called the interrogator) carried in the craft and a pulse receiver transmitter system (called the transponder) at a fixed position on the ground. The interrogator transmit pulses identically at a frequency, say f1. These are received by the receiver of the transponder, amplified, demodulated and made to trigger transmitter, generally after a small fixed delay ............................. In the craft, the receiver which is tuned to f2 receives these pulses and the delay between the transmitter is measured to obtain the distance of the transponder from the craft. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the notification. 5. The question, therefore, is whether the DME is qualified for exemption under clause 2 of the notification. The relevant notification is as follows: Apparatus for wireless reception incorporated in a single unit with transmitting apparatus and components thereof. 6. A reading of the above shows that it applies to a single apparatus incorporating both the receiving and transmitting units. The emphasis appears to be on an apparatus which functions as the receiving and transmitting signals whereas the DME is used for determining the position of an aircraft. It allows an aircraft to measure its distance from a selected ground based beacon. According to McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science Technology, (Vol.4 - 5th Edition at page 256) DME is described as a Navigation instrument. According to the author, Navigation instrument primarily relate to the position of the aircraft with respect to specific locations on the earth. Navigational aids include : ......... distance measuring equipment (DME) that indicates the distance to radio............ or near airports or............ The same author at page 339 describes DME as An internationally standardised navig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter, the DME would qualify for exemption under Notification No. 284/76 (Sl. No. 2 of the Table) . In the Grounds of Appeal, the appellants have not set out any ground for classification under Heading 90.14 as Navigational Instrument nor in the prayer column of the Appeal Memo, such a prayer has been made. The Bill of entry dated 13.4.1983 produced before us shows that the appellants had sought for classification of (I) Duel Transponder Complete with Monitor, automatic charge over unit, antenna system and RF Cable under Heading 85.18/27(1). Sr. No. (II) Oscilloscope, Tektronics Model under Heading 90.28(i). Sr. No. (Ill) Technical Operation, Installation and Maintenance Manuals under Heading 49.01 and Sr. No. (IV) Pulse Frequency Counter under Heading 90.28 (4). Another Bill of Entry dated 13.4.83, marked Annexure 1 has one item namely, DMK Koyer under Heading 83. 10. In Form No. CA-1 of appeal to the Collector (Appeals), in column 7 the reliefs claimed are - Refund of excess customs duty of Rs. 53,29,249.11 P. recovered in excess as a result of higher rate of customs duty @ 100% + 35% + 10% instead of 30% + 20% + 10%. The Statement of facts, Annexure I, to Form No. CA-1, in pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... classification under Chapter 85. Therefore, it is observed that the appellants had not sought for classification under Heading 90.14 as Navigational Instruments instead they have been agitating under Heading 85.15 and not Heading 85.18/27(1). What has been typed as question for consideration in para 1 of the statement of facts to the Appeal Memo appears to be incorrect reading in line with the other materials discussed on record. The question of classification of imported items under Chapter 90.14 was therefore, never raised by the appellants but instead admitted the classification under Heading 85 but only sought for concessional duty under exemption Notification No. 284/76 as amended by Notification No. 412/76, dated 18-9-1976 under Heading 85. The appellants had not raised any classification dispute and as such the lower authorities had not gone into it and besides the duty had not been paid under protest also. But only they have sought for refund under exemption notification under Heading 85 under which the imported items were sought to be classified. Hence, the question of remand on this ground to lower authorities is not necessitated and no remand is called for. 15. As reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
