9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no dispute as to classification, for purpose of customs duty, as goods have been assessed either under T.I. 72(3) of the ICT in cases of imports prior to 2-8-76, whereas under T.I. 34.06, or other related entries, in case of imports after the enforcement of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The controversy in the present appeals centres on the question of classification, under the Central Excise Tariff for the purpose of countervailing duty; the dispute having arisen because of the insistence of the Customs authorities to treat the imported parts as parts of motor-vehicles liable to Central Excise Duty under TI 34-A. 2. The plea of the appellants, throughout, has been that what they import is : Parts of Internal Combustion Diesel Engines and that they, in fact, are manufacturers of I.C. Diesel Engines and that they hold industrial licence for the manufacture of I.C. Engines only. They further contend that application of the diesel engines manufactured by them is, primarily, for stationary or non-vehicular uses such as fitting in shovels, bull dozers, cranes, oil drilling rigs, compressors, etc., and that a very small percentage of these engines were fitted to dumpers, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment and an appeal was taken against Single Bench judgment, but the Division Bench of the High Court also ruled likewise and rejected the contention of the Department for levy of countervailing duty under TI 34A of the CET as if the goods were motor vehicle parts . We were informed during hearing that even an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against this Division Bench judgment of Bombay High Court, but the said appeal was also dismissed at the admission stage. This has not been controverted from the side of the respondent. The appellants in the first instance, after a notice of hearing in some of the appeals, sent written submissions vide letter dated 19-5-86, on the file of Appeal No. 278/79-B2, where they reiterated their principal pleas; namely, that - (a) That they have imported are I.C. Engine Components, and the classification for these components for payment of customs duty has been accepted as the I.C. Engine Parts and not as Motor Vehicle Parts . (b) The Appellants held Industrial Licence for manufacture of I.C. Engines and not for Motor Vehicles . (c) The Appellants predominantly manufacture stationary/ industrial type of engines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ombay High Court, and also the fact that there is a series of judgements given by the Tribunal on identical issues, defended the Department s point of view, very strongly, explaining that the goods were held to be assessable under TI 72(3) as machinery parts earlier because of the wording of the Proviso to TI 75(13) of the ICT which laid emphasis on the principal and ordinary use of the article. He similarly explained that under the CTA, the goods were being assessed not as parts of motor vehicles for the purpose of basic customs duty, but under various headings of TI 84 because of the exclusion clause contained in Section Note 2(e) to Sec. XVII of the CTA, which includes the chapter dealing with motor vehicles (Chapter 87). Shri Gopinath also produced some papers including photocopies of an extract from McGraw Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Vol. 14 pertaining to Tractors and Caterppillar Catalogue for Tractor, Buldoser and Wheel Loaders . He argued that motor vehicle parts , as contemplated by TI 34A, have to be read with TI 34, which defines motor vehicles , and that tractors are also one of the categories specified in TI 34. He argued, with reference to the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessing authorities to the effect that classification of given goods under Central Excise for the purpose of countervailing duty depended primarily on the classification of those goods under Customs Tariff. He said that the goods in that case were of a different nature but the principle laid down applies on all fours to the present case because what has been provided is that the classification, which is accepted for the purpose of customs duty in the case of imported goods, should also apply for the purpose of countervailing duty and a parallel classification in the Central Excise Tariff accepted. This copy of trade notice also indicates that parallel trade notices were issued from Chandigarh, West Bengal, Indore, Madras and Baroda Collectorates, on or about the same date, which indicates that this trade notice was based on some general consensus or the directive issued from a Central authority. Shri Jamdar pleaded that the same principle should govern their cases and that the Customs authorities cannot apply different yardsticks in relation to the similar imports when countervailing duty is in fact only an additional duty of customs. 9. We have given our very careful thought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bombay High Court, as endorsed by the Hon ble Supreme Court. The stretched reasoning, which Shri J. Gopinath advanced before us with the help of catalogues, that even bull-dozers, loaders, etc., are moved with tractors and, thus, the engines fitted on them also become engines of vehicular use, cannot be taken into consideration at this late stage because what we are deciding here is the correctness of the view of the lower authorities for the reasons stated by them, and we find that in none of the large number of orders before us in these appeals, the lower authorities have gone by this consideration; namely, that the imported parts are to be treated as engine parts for the purpose of basic customs duty because of the exclusion from the Chapter covering motor vehicles . The view, on the other hand, is, as a reading of the orders passed by the lower authorities would reveal, that since the imported parts fit in under specific headings of TI 84 of the Customs Tariff, they have to be assessed for the purpose of basic customs duty accordingly. They ought to have seen as to whether TI 34A directly fits in with the description or category of the imported parts, and the answer is clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgement in Order No. 972/83-B, dated 8-12-83, where it was held that there was no reason to take a view different that the earlier decisions of the Tribunal taken in the Order No. B-59/83 1983 (12) E.L.T. 546 (T) = ECR April 1983 355D (CEGAT). The learned Member, while recording dissenting judgment did not, apparently, take into consideration the three earlier orders, to which he was also a party and, as already observed, one of which had even been written by him. We, therefore, find, with all respects to the learned Member, the majority view in the last judgment of the Tribunal to be fully answering all the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent. We have also gone into all these arguments, and the additional arguments as addressed before us, and find no ground made out to take a different view, particularly when we find that none of the judgments of the Tribunal has been taken in appeal as no such statement was made before us on behalf of the respondent. 11. For all the foregoing reasons, we set aside the assessed levy of countervailing duty on the imported goods, which are the subject-matter of these appeals before us, as a classification under TI 34-A of the CET cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
