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

1997 (12) TMI 301

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 27/90-B2 and appeal bearing No. C/2104/90-B2 are not listed today. Shri M.L. Malviya, Chief Manager and Shri R.N. Ojha, Senior Assistant Supervisor appearing for M/s. HAL submitted that the issue for consideration in all these appeals is similar; they have come from (Koraput) Orissa for attending these hearings and it would be in the interest of justice if the two appeals not listed today are also taken up for hearing. 2. Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR appearing for the respondent Revenue had no objection. With the consent of both the sides, therefore these two appeals bearing No. C/2104/90-B2 and C/1527/90-B2 are also taken up for hearing. 3. The matter in all these four appeals relate to the eligibility of the raw materials imported by M/s. HAL .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the expression castings . 6. In reply Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR submitted that the expression alloys in S. No. 1 of the table was not independent and that the expression of ferrous and non-ferrous metals and alloys covers only the products mentioned earlier, that is coils, strips, sheets, rods, bars, extrusions, wires and tubes. He also submitted that the expression castings is in conjunction with stampings and forgings and by castings was meant the cast goods and not the ingots which were separately described in the Customs tariff. He pleaded that the view taken by the lower authorities were correct and as the exemption notification was worded, the goods imported were not covered by the said exemption. 7. We have carefully considered .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e manufactured from alloys, they should be taken as alloys for the purposes of the said notification. We consider that the expression alloys is not independent and refer to the various products listed in S. No. 1 of the table, already extracted above. The term alloys had to be understood with reference to the constituent metals of coils, strips etc. for the purpose of the Customs Tariff, alloy means the alloy of the metal which predominates by weight over each of the other metals. 10. Ingots are a separate commodity and during the relevant time were classifiable under Heading No. 7304.06 or 7304.07. It was explained in the Chapter Note G of Chapter 73 that the ingots were the products for rolling or forging obtained by casting into mo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion in the company of stamping and forgings. In view of the rule of interpretation the castings had to be understood as the product having a distinct identity. 14. In the case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1988 (35) E.L.T. 605 (S.C.), the Supreme Court dealt with the classification of iron and steel wheels tyres and axles of railways which were manufactured by the process of forgings. The Supreme Court observed that the goods had been manufactured according to specifications and drawings agreed to between the Indian Railways and the TISCO. The axles were supplied to the Railways in rough machined conditions and wheels tyres and blanks were supplied in as rolled/forged condition. It is clear that the expres .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dia undertaking and the goods were for use in the manufacture of Defence Aircrafts. The notification however has to be construed strictly and in terms of expression in use. We find that the scope of the exemption is restricted and the notification is not widely worded. Only specified goods find mention in the exemption notification and the benefit is not available to the goods which are not specifically covered by the table annexed to that notification. 18. Taking all the relevant facts and considerations into account, we consider that the disputed goods were not covered by the exemption Notification No. 211/77-Cus., dated 15-10-1977 as amended. As a result all the four appeals are rejected. Ordered accordingly. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - .....

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