9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ME COURT OF INDIA] dealt with an exemption notification that gave to articles mentioned in column (2) of the Table thereof and falling under Heading 84.06 exemption from payment of a certain portion of customs duty. Column (2) of the Table mentioned internal combustion piston engines and parts thereof. Heading 84.06, however, referred to internal combustion piston engines but not to parts thereof. The Court declined to accept the contention of authorities that the benefit of the exemption notification could not be given to parts of internal combustion piston engines because parts were not covered by Heading 84.06. To do so, it said, would be to amend the exemption notification, which the Court would not do. Appeal dismissed. - 2794 of 1984 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant s a notice under Section 35A(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, requiring them to show cause why the order of the Assistant Collector should not be reviewed and set aside. The appellant s contention that aprons and cots were classifiable under Item 16A was rejected and they were classified under Item 68. The appellant s carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the Collector, but restricted the demand to the date of his show cause notice. Item 16A reads thus : Item No. Tariff description Rate of duty (1) (2) (3) 16A. Rubber products, the following namely :- (1) La ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hinery articles (including typewriters) provided such component parts do not perform the function of conveying air, gas or liquid. 4. Mr. A.M. Setalvad, learned counsel for the appellant s, submitted that aprons and cots were classifiable under Item 16A because they were piping and tubing of unhardened vulcanised rubber . Being specifically covered under this item, the residuary Item 68 had no application. 5. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in Bharat Forge Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1990 (45) E.L.T. 525, where the appellant s made pipe fitting such as elbows and bends by cutting steel pipes and tubes into different sizes, giving them shape and turning them into pipe fittings b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he reference to the various processes by which the excisable item could be manufactured were comprehensive enough to sweep within their fold these goods. 6. Mr. Setalvad submitted that even if it be found that aprons and cots were correctly classifiable under Item 68, the benefit of the said exemption notification should be extended to them because they were piping and tubing designed to be or converted in the factory of production into component parts of machinery and they did not perform the function of conveying air, gas or liquids. 7. In that behalf our attention was drawn to the judgment of this Court in Jain Engineering Co. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1987 (32) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). This was a case relating to rod bushes and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parts, the item had specifically done so; thus, in sub-item (4) transmission, conveyor or elevator belts or belting .............. were spoken of. Mr. Vellapally, drew attention in this behalf to judgment of this Court in Collector of Customs v. K. Mohan Co. Exports - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 811, where the contention on behalf of the assessee that film rolls of indefinite length and not in the form of individual cut pieces were more appropriately described as sheetings , not sheets , was accepted. Mr. Vellapally submitted that under the terms of the said exemption notification piping and tubing covered by Item 16A was exempt if it was designed to be used or converted in the factory of its production into component parts of machinery. The int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
