Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1991 (7) TMI 197

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the appellants for refund of differential duty on the grounds that the tubes in question being meant for fitment as parts in condensers for turbines were assessable under Heading 84.04/05 at 40% + 20% + 10% CVD was rejected by the Asstt. Collector. The appeal filed by the appellants was also rejected on the grounds that the copper tubes being specifically covered under Heading 74.07/08 the imported tubes were assessable under that heading, notwithstanding the fact that they were cut to size for fitment in condensers. 2. On behalf of the appellants we heard the learned advocate Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran. He contended that the imported tubes had to be deemed as parts of cooling system of turbines since they were cut to size for fitment wit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ds in question even then the goods would have deemed as covered by Heading 84.04/05 the heading occurring later, in terms of Rule 3(a) of the Rules of Interpretation of the Customs Tariff Schedule. 3. On behalf of the department the learned SDR Shri S.K. Roy argued that the intended use is not relevant for the purpose of classification of any goods under the customs tariff since goods have to be classified keeping in view their form at the time of importation. He contended that notwithstanding the fact that the imported tubes were made of special material and were cut to size for being used straightaway as condenser tubings, they continued to be copper-alloy tubings classifiable under the specific Heading 74.07/08 in preference to the gen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s case for classification of the disputed goods under Heading 84.04/05 of the C.T.A. rests mainly on the argument that the imported tubes were made of special corrosion resistant copper-nickel alloy conforming to the relevant British Standards and being cut to specified sizes they were suitable for fitment as parts directly into condensers or cooling systems of turbines as replacement for identical worn out tubes. In this regard reliance has been placed on the B.T.N. Explanatory Note to Heading 74.07 and also to the Note to Heading 73.18 which is also applicable as regard to the scope of Heading 74.07. In this regard reference has been made particularly to the following entry in the list of items which are specifically excluded from the sco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... argument that the tubes in question were parts of condensers classifiable under Heading 84.04/05. Even if it is accepted that the imported copper alloy tubings being cut to size, their classification under Heading 84.04/05 as parts of condensors/turbine cooling system was also merited, still the Heading 74.07/08 being more specific of the two would have to be preferred on the basis of the well accepted principle laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. and Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1566 that when an article is by all standards classifiable under a specific item of the Tariff Schedule, it would be against the very principles of classification to deny it the percentage and consig .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he statutory guideline provided in the Interpretation Rule 3(a). 8. In view of our finding that Heading 74.07/08 C.T.A. was more specific for the goods in question which were merely copper-alloy tubings and not identifiable parts of machinery, the decision quoted by the appellants is of no help to them. 9. It is seen that our finding that the copper-alloy tubings were correctly classifiable under Heading 74.07/08 C.T.A. in preference to Heading 84.04/05 also finds support from the Tribunal s decision in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. CC, Madras reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 637 wherein copper-nickel tubes (30% nickel and 70% copper) claimed to have been exclusively designed for use in heat exchanger or condensor system of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates