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 273

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed the goods as Airless Paint to be as declared and the catalogue also described the goods as declared for Model No. PPL-1153 with a pump ratio 3 : 1 as per catalogue. 1.3 The Revenue howver, felt that the said pump was for spraying only and is part of Airless Spraying Equipment . Therefore, as per Note 2 of Section XVI, there is a dispute as to whether it is to be assessed as under Heading 84.13 as claimed by the appellants or as a part of Spraying Equipment under Heading 84.24. 1.4 Investigation further revealed that the appellants had imported spray guns, fluid regulators and air caps of the said Spraying Equipment under three Bills of Entry Nos. 2720, 2719 and 2718 dated 9-3-1992. It was further felt by the Revenue that the presen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lleged in the show cause notice. They have also stated that the pump on its own cannot be used for spraying and this pump is only used for transferring of paint from one container to another. 1.6 As regards the components of spray painting equipment imported by them in three other Bills of Entry, they stated that they are manufacturers of paint spraying equipment and they are regularly importing critical components not available in India for manufacturing of final product. 1.7 It was also stated that even if it is assumed that spray guns were deliberately imported separately to claim lower duties, the imported goods in three earlier Bills of Entry were totally incompatible with Airless Painting technology and there is no matching betwee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hermas Devilbiss Ltd., Pune under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, in respect of all the 4 consignments as discussed above taken together." 1.9 Hence this appeal by the appellants. 2.1 Learned Advocate, Shri Arvind Kumar has reiterated the aforesaid pleas taken by the appellants in their reply to the show cause notice. He has further elucidated the pleas, as aforesaid. Drawing attention to the catalogue in respect of the imported goods in the Bill of Entry relating to low pressure pumps (at page 34 of the Paper Book) learned Advocate submitted that the pump ratio of the imported pump is 3 : 1. The maximum air input pressure is 8 bar, the maximum material pressure is 24 bar and air consumption at 40 cycles per minute is 1151. From t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... adjudicating authority but these have all been ignored by the adjudicating authority and he has relied upon only a single piece of evidence of the certificate of country of origin which inadvertently described the goods as Airless Spraying Equipment. In the face of other overwhelming evidence, as mentioned above, learned Advocate submits that a clerical mistake in certificate of country of origin should not be blown out of proportion. Finding that this consignment of low pressure pumps forms part of Airless Spraying Equipment when clubbed with the other three Bills of Entry, is not correct. He further submits that it is a well settled proposition that an adjudicating authority should not ignore any relevant evidence. For this proposition, h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mits, clearly lies on the person who asserts a definite claim or makes it a particular allegation. On this proposition, he relies on 1996 (87) E.L.T. 12 (Para 15), 1996 (82) E.L.T. 129 (Para 11), 1994 (69) E.L.T. 674 (Para 9.4). He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is not sustainable and therefore, be set aside and the appeal be allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. 3.1 On the other hand, the learned SDR, for the Revenue has reiterated the aforesaid findings of the adjudicating authority. He has highlighted certain portions of the impugned order. From a reading of these portions, it is apparent that the adjudicating authority has time and again stressed the fact that the certificate of origin found to be on examin .....

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