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

1998 (8) TMI 235

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndia Ltd. manufacture Plunger which is used in Brake Assembly as Piston. The Assistant Commissioner held that plunger is classifiable under Item 34A as the application of Tariff Item 34A read with Notification No. 99/71 is not restricted to piston of I.C. engines only. However, on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), following the decisions of the Madras High Court in the case of Southern Automatic Industries (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Collector reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 693 (Mad.), set aside the order in original holding that the word piston rings in Notification No. 99/71 could refer only to a piston used in I.C. engines. #. Shri R. Swarup, ld. DR submitted that at the relevant time motor vehicle parts were classifiable under Tariff It .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the decisions in Southern Automatic is not applicable to the present case; that there is nothing in Notification No. 99/71 to suggest that the Piston used in I.C. engines alone are dutiable; that the description in the Notification is specific and does not give any room for interpretation; that the interpretation of the provisions of taxing statute must be done strictly in accordance with the language employed therein, without resorting to inferences; that the Collector (Appeals) erred in holding that the pistons used in I.C. engines were dutiable. 3. Shri V. Sridharan, ld. Advocate on behalf of the Respondents, submitted that the Dictionary meaning is not relevant for the purpose of classification as has been held by various High Courts .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lier as piston rings. It is only this item which got clarified or expatiated by subsequent Notification 95/72 and 14/75. If the intention was to add on any specific item of a new category to the already enumerated items, nothing prevented the Central Government to add on specific new item as Item 12 instead of expatiating Item No. 6 itself. I have not heard any convincing answer on behalf of respondents for this legitimate request. Item 6 after the Notification No. 95/72 specifically refers to `pistons and `piston rings as clauses (a) (b) Notification No. 14/75 gives further expatiation to this item by adding two more clauses as (c) gudgeon pins and (d) circlips. If the intention was to make circlips, in general, as motor vehicle parts .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t Item No. 6 originally dealt with piston rings and by Notification No. 95/72, the expatiation took in its fold (a) Pistons" and (b) Piston Rings . The addition of clause (d) by Notification No. 14/75 should also derive its colour and context, or in other words, the meaning to be annexed thereto in the context in which it occurs viz., with reference to Item 6 only and the history of Item 6 cannot be ignored in this regard". 4. The ld. Counsel, further, submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has always maintained that, in the absence of decision to the contrary by any other High Court or the Supreme Court, the decision of the High Court has to be followed. He referred on the decision in the case of C.C.E. v. United Glass and Others report .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... igh Court if there is no other decision to the contrary by any other High Court or the Apex Court. Further the decision of the Madras High Court, being jurisdictional High Court, has to be followed. The Appellate Tribunal in the case of Madura Coats v. C.C.E. - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 512 held that The Tribunal has to proceed with the decision in Atma Steels Pvt. Ltd. in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in East India Commercial Company case, where the jurisdictional High Court i.e., jurisdiction in respect of the authority which adjudicated the matter initially and the assessee, has taken a particular view on interpretation or proposition of law; that view has to be followed in cases within such jurisdiction. If the jurisdictional H .....

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