9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (6) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n essential part of the textile printing machine. During the hearing of the case before us on 28-6-1983, the appellants showed a sample of the subject rubber diaphragm, and explained its function with reference to the catalogue of the textile printing machine. They stated that the subject rubber diaphragm had been exclusively designed to perform a specific function in the said machine and had been given a definite shape and size for that purpose. They added that Note 3(c) to Chapter 40 of the CTA excluded mechanical or electrical appliances or parts thereof (including electrical goods of all kinds), of hardened rubber, falling within Section XVI; from the purview of Chapter 40 and, therefore, the goods were correctly assessable under Head ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. We have carefully considered the matter. It is not in dispute that the goods were made of rubber and that they were a part of the textile printing machine. The appellants plea to assess the goods under the heading relating to textile printing machinery proceeds on the assumption that all parts of machinery have to be assessed under the appropriate machinery heading. But we find from the Customs Tariff that it contains no such golden rule of universal application. On the contrary, there are numerous section notes and chapter notes in the Tariff which specifically exclude certain parts of machinery from the scope of the machinery chapters and provide for their assessment on the basis of their material composition under other chapters. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubject diaphragm produced before us by the appellants. The sample contained considerable elasticity. It had to be elastic because, according to the appellants own statement, it functioned by being inflated through the injection of air into it. Such an article cannot be called as made of hardened rubber in the sense this term is normally understood. The exclusion Note 3(c) relied on by the appellants is, therefore, not applicable. We agree with the Department s representative that exclusion Note 1(a) to Section XVI, which we have already discussed earlier, applies to the subject goods. In view of the specific provision of this Note, the subject rubber diaphragm, even though a part of the textile printing machine, has to be assessed under He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
