9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e take up machines. The appellants imported spares and accessories for the take up machines and sought their assessment under Chapters 84, 85 and 90. The Customs assessed such spares and accessories as per the classification suggested except in the case of collapsible spool for the take up machines. These were classified under Heading 73.33/40(1) in accordance with Note 1(C) of Section XVI of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Collector (Appeals) citing the same provisions and on the observation that the spools were not integral parts of the machine upheld the assessment resulting in the persent appeal before us. 2. The case for the appellants was argued by Shri N.R. Khaitan, Advocate assisted by Ms. Gauri Rasgotra, Advocate. The Revenue w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spool. The spool could be termed as accessory but not parts. Referring to the copy of the catalogue he argued that the machines could take all sizes of spools and that it was not necessary that the spool should be of specific dimensions alone. He further claimed that if the spools were an integral part, they need not have been ordered or supplied separately. He stated that Note 1(C) referred to in the lower proceedings was correctly relied upon in classifying the spools. 5. We have carefully considered the various submissions made before us by both the sides. 6. The single issue for determination is whether collapsible spools are integral part of the machinery or not. We observe that the various citations made before us are of n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n their judgment in the case of Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd. And Others v. Collector of Customs, Madras And Others, reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 235 (Tribunal), the Tribunal have stressed the need to read the Section Notes and Chapter Notes which have an overriding force on the respective headings. 8. It is not necessary that every accessories which is essential for performance of a machine is necessarily to be termed as a part. The Bombay High Court when examining the role of diskettes in computers compared the diskettes to cassettes used in tape recorders and held that these could not be called as parts of the machinery or not even accessories [1986 (25) E.L.T. 485]. The same view has been expressed by the Supreme Court in Kores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
