9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The claim was rejected by Assistant Collector. Collector of Customs (Appeals) upheld the order of Asstt. Collector. The appellants have now come in appeal before the Tribunal. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellants when the matter was called. The appellants have, however, requested for decision on merits. 3. The appellants claimed that Notification No. 69/87 should be read harmoniously with Notification No. 132/87-Cus. Notification No. 69/87-Cus. was issued on 1-3-1987 and Notification No. 132/87-Cus. on 19-3-1987 without amending the earlier Notification No. 69/87. The intention of the Govt. was only to exclude parts of machinery falling under CTH 8483.20 and 8483.30 from Chapter 98 and not part of other machinery. When both not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aving general application, notified the goods described in the table annexed to Notification No. 132/87, dated 19-3-1987. Goods falling under Chapter Heading 84.83 are among others such notified goods indicated against S. No. 4 of the table of this notification. In other words, in exercise of specific powers conferred on the Central Govt., goods falling under Heading 84.83 were notified as goods having general application which in terms of Chapter Note 7(d) would not be covered under CTH 98.06. In view of this, it is clear that the impugned goods cannot be classified under Heading 98.06 and would not be eligible to concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 69/87, dated 1-3-1987. Notification No. 69/87, dated 1-3-1987 of course includ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave - 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 350) (SC) - 1069 (2) S.C.R. 253 that such a Notification has to be interpreted in the light of the words employed by it and not on any other basis. This was so held in the context of the principle that in a taxing statute, there is no room for any intendment, that regard must be had to be clear meaning of the words and that the matter should be governed wholly by the language of the notification, i.e. by the plain terms of the exemption. The principle was reiterated again by Hon ble Apex Court in case of Liberty Oil Mills (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - 1995 (75) E.L.T. 13 (SC). Apex Court held that in case of exemption notification, the ambiguity or doubt will be r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
