9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion". In view of the above direction of the Supreme Court, the appeal having been filed on 11-8-1989 is deemed to be maintainable. 2. The brief facts are : In the Year 1985, the dispute of classification of Connecting Rod Bushes and Can Shaft Bushes for Ford Tractor Engines under Bill of Entry No. 1580/26 dated 27-6-1985 arose. The appellants had sought classification under Heading 84.06 C.T.A. (prior to the rescheduling of the Tariff) and claimed benefit of Notification No. 281/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976, which, however, was assessed under Heading 84.63(2) and benefit of Notification was denied and the decision in the appeal to the appellate courts of Collector (Appeals) and Appellate Tribunal were confirmed. 3. Before the Supreme Court, the issue got resolved when the Supreme Court held that as soon as it is proved that the parts are of the engines mentioned in Heading No. 84.06, such parts will get the benefit of the Notification, irrespective of the fact that they or any or some of them have already been included under Heading 84.63 or under any other heading . 4. Meanwhile, several other consignments of similar goods had been assessed provisionally and the Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds to grants exemption to internal combustion piston engines, but also to parts thereof . In our opinion, therefore, the Notification will apply to parts of the Engines mentioned under Heading 84.06..... The Hon ble Supreme Court further observed : . when the notification grants exemption to the parts of the engines, as mentioned under Heading No. 84.06, we find no reason to exclude any of such parts simply because it is included under another Heading. The intention of the Notification is clear enough to provide that the parts of the engines, mentioned under Heading No. 84.06, will get the exemption under the Notification and in the absence of any provision to the contrary, we are unable to hold that the parts of the engines, which are included under a Heading other than Heading No. 84.06, are excluded from the benefit of the notification.. It is thus clear that the Hon ble Supreme Court had extended the benefit to parts of such 1C Engines in the Notification 281/76-Cus. as they did not find any contradiction in the provisions of the notification to hold that only those parts of IC Engines which themselves are classifiable under Heading 84.06, are eligible for benefit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 dated 28-2-1986, there was a change in the Heading No. to 84.07,84.08 and 84.09 but with no change in the basic text of the Notification No. 281/76-Cus., dated 02-08-1976. With issue of Notification No. 208-Cus., dated 13-3-1986 and with inclusion of S. No. 29 to Notification No. 153/86-Cus., dated 01-03-1986, irrespective of the change in the tariff heading under which the parts fall under 84.07, 84.08 and 84.09, they were entitled to the basic concept of extending the benefit to parts of the IC Engines solely and principally used for agricultural tractors and which could not be interchanged with other motor-vehicles. With the introduction of Heading 98.06 through the Finance Act of 1987, they will continue to get the benefit of the concession to the parts. In terms of Chapter Note 7(d) to Chapter 98 which empowers the Government to issue notification in respect of parts having general application, by virtue of Notification No. 132/87-Cus., dated 19-3-1987, thus notified the parts solely and principally designed for use in ICP Engines for agricultural tractors would continue to fall under Heading No. 98.06 read with Heading No. 84.09 and gets covered by the Notification No. 69 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upreme Court when it decided the judgment dated 18-9-1987, to quote we find no reason to exclude any of such parts simply because it is included under another Heading. The intention of the notification is clear enough to provide that the parts of engines, mentioned under Heading 84.06 will get the exemption under the notification and in the absence of any provision to the contrary, we are unable to hold that the parts of the engines, which are included under a Heading other than Heading 84.06, are excluded from the benefit of the notification . Therefore, so long as the part was found to be a part of the Internal Combustion Engine of the description under S. No. 2 of the table to Notification No. 281/76 dated 2-8-1976, it will get the benefit, even if the part was found classifiable under a separate heading. 10. Notification No. 281/76 was amended by Notification No. 103/86 dated 28-2-1986, when the Heading No. 84.06 was replaced by Heading Nos. 84.07, 84.08, 84.09. This change due to restructuring of the Tariff, also brought about a change in the description of the Heading 84.06. The Heading 84.06 referred to Internal Combustion Engines without any further amplification. But He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad valorem (f) Parts of goods covered by (e) above. 40 per cent ad valorem (g) Internal combustion piston engines for locomotives excluding those which are inter- changeable for use with motor vehicles other than those specified in (c) above. 50 per cent ad valorm (h) Parts of goods covered by (g) above. 40 per cent ad valorem (1) (2) (3) (4) 30. Xx xx Xx XX XXXX XX The plain reading of the notification will indicate that not all parts of Internal Combustion Engines, which were earlier covered by Heading 84.06 will get the benefit of the concessional rate but only the parts of the Heading 84.07, 84.08 and 84.09 because the heading had undergone a change and are made specific, only those parts which fall under 84.09 will get the benefit of the notification. Therefore, when notification restricts the benefit to a particular heading, it cannot get extended to other parts falling under other heading. The fundamental principle laid down by the Supreme Court was only with reference to the Headi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealing with an American case :- As we have already stated, the intention of the legislature must be primarily ascertained from the language used. This obviously means, as a general rule, that the courts have no power to add to, or to change, alter, or eliminate the words which the legislature has incorporated in a statute, not even in order to provide for certain contingencies which the legislature failed to meet, or to avoid hardship flowing from the language used, or to advance the remedy of the statute . 11. The appellants, thereafter claimed the exemption under Notification No. 69/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. In respect of which the Collector has observed thus :- With reference to the claims made by M/s. Jain Engineering Co., Delhi, for extending the benefit in terms of Notification No. 69/87 dated 1-3-1987,I observe that this benefit flows to parts falling under Heading 98.06. The statute i.e. the Customs Tariff Act, was amended w.e.f. 1-3-1987 and that in the statute both 84.09 and 98.06 are co-existing and in the matter gone into by the Hon ble Supreme Court there was no occasion to consider the changes effected in the statute, even though their order was dated Septembe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
