1992 (11) TMI 175

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e appellants imported goods described in the Bill of Entry as Copper Moulds for continuous Billet Casting. The goods were assessed to duty under Heading 98.06 read with Notification No. 69/87-Cus. as claimed by the appellants. Subsequently, they filed refund claim for auxiliary duty in terms of Notification No. 112/87-Cus. Under this Notification at Serial No. 37 to the Table thereof Converters, ladles, ingots moulds, and casting machines, of a kind used in metallurgy and in metal foundries; parts thereof falling under Chapter 84 are exempted from auxiliary duty of customs. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim holding that the goods are correctly classified under Sub-heading 9806.00 which covers parts of machinery equipments, applianc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... under Tariff Heading 84.06 CETA which is also mentioned in the notification. The Supreme Court did not accept the contention that as Heading 8406 does not mention the parts, the notification is inapplicable to the parts. Shri M.K. Jain, the learned Senior Departmental Representative contended that the goods imported are not moulds but copper mould tubes. These are classifiable under Chapter 84, therefore, neither by description nor by Chapter heading, the goods can be said to be covered by exemption Notification No. 112/87. In reply, the learned Consultant pointed out that there was a Departmental Tariff advice 48 of 28-8-1980 wherein it has been informed that Copper Mould Tube used for continuous casting of steel is classifiable under Hea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ading 84.06 by necessary implication and in the context of the Notification it includes parts of the engines and, therefore, the Supreme Court observed that the Court was of the view that parts of the engines mentioned under sub-heading 8406.00 will get the benefit of exemption under the Notification. The Supreme Court further observed in that case that when the intention is clear and manifest, it will be unreasonable to take narrow view of the notification and to not extend the benefit to the parts of the engines referred to in Heading 8406. The Court observed to accept the contention made on behalf of the respondent that as heading under 8406 does not mention the parts, the notification is inapplicable to the parts, will be to amend the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X