9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Peeran, Member (J)]. This appeal arises from common order dated 20-11-1989 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. 2 The appellants have also filed supplementary appeals along with COD application. As the supplementary appeals arise from the Order-in-Original which is merged with the impugned order and in view of the prevailing practice, the application for condonation is all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 125/86 is not available to the importer. 4. We have heard both the sides in this matter. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Abrol Watches Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay by its judgment dated 17th December, 1996 have interpreted the proviso to Notification No. 132/85 which states : - Nothing contained in this notification shall affect the exemption granted under any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in view of the clarifications and law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court, which is as under : - The assessee imported horological machinery. It was imported to be installed in a watch making factory. The import was treated as a project import within the meaning of Chapter 98 of the First Schedule of the Customs Act and the goods were cleared under Heading 98.01. To project imports an Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove 10% ad valorem. The assessee claimed the benefit of the second of the two Notifications referred to above (now called the horological notification ). The Tribunal took the view that, since the assessee had chosen the classification under Chapter 98 as a project import, the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of the larger exemption given by the horological notification. The Tribunal re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he exemption granted in respect of Customs duty under any other notification. The two notifications read together, therefore, leave us in no doubt that the view taken by the Tribunal was erroneous. Though the assessee had cleared his goods under Heading 98.01, it was, for the reasons aforesaid, entitled to the benefit of the exemption given by the horological notification. The appeal is allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
