9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (5) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss of 40% ad valoerm and the whole of the Addl. duty leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Notification No. 47-Cus., dated 1-3-1979, which superseded Notification No. 272-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 exempted Computer and Computer Sub-system falling under sub-heading No. (2) of heading 84.51/55 of the said Schedule from so much of the portion of the duty of the Customs as was in excess of 40% ad valorem and so much of Additional duty of Customs as was in excess of 10% ad valorem. Notification No. 115-Cus., dated 19-6-1980 which superseded Notification No. 47-Cus., dated 1-3-1979 exempted Computer and Computer peripheral Units falling under sub-heading No. (2) of heading No. 84.51/55 of the said Schedule from so much of duty of Customs as was in excess of 40 % ad valorem. It would be seen, that while the first two notifications used the term Computer subsystems, Notification No. 115-Cus., dated 19-6-1980 inter alia used the expression Computer pheripheral Units. 2. The main point for decision in these appeals is whether terms Computer sub-system and computer peripheral units are synonymous and the. goods imported by the appellants fell within their meaning. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders dated 8-9-1982, the Appellate Collector of Customs, New Delhi rejected the appellants claim for concessional assessments under Notification No. 272-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 and Notification No. 47-Cus., dated 1-3-1979 following his earlier order. 4. From the grounds of appeal, it appears that in these cases, the appellants had imported Magnetic Tape Drive for use as peripherals of data processing system. A statement showing the particulars of the goods imported, the notification under which the appellants claimed concessional rate of duty, orders-in-appeal Nos. with date and numbers assigned by the Tribunal to the appeal has been filed by the appellants. This has been checked by the respondent and the Bench was informed that the information contained in this statement was correct. The statement is annexed to this order as Schedule-A to be read as part of the order. 5. At the hearing of the appeals, Sh. K. Narasimhan, Advocate for the appellants argued that phrase Computer sub-systems used in Notification No. 272-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 and No. 47-Cus., dated 1-3-1979 and Computer peripheral units used in Notification No. 115/80-Cus., dated 19-6-1980 are synonymous. He submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 63/70-Cus. (T) dated 1-2-1972 (T. A. No. 6 of 1972) printed in Indian Customs Tariff Guide, 14th Edn. Reliance was also placed on two decisions of the Tribunal : (i) Operation Research Group, Baroda v. Collector of Customs, Bombay Order No. B-486/83, dated 2-6-1983-1983 E.L.T. 1797 (CEGAT) and (ii) Order No. B-250/1983 dated 13-4-1983 in M/s. British Airways, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay. In the first case, the Tribunal held that Floppy Disk Drive Model FD-511 are parts of computer sub-systems entitled to the benefits of Customs Notification No. 272-Cus./76, as amended by Notification No. 47-Cus./79. It has been urged that the floppy disk drive involved in the present appeals is similar to floppy disk drive decided in the above cases. This has not been disputed by the other party. In the British Airways case, the Tribunal decided that Computer Select System S. 2686 are computer system eligible to concession under Notification No. 272-Cus., dated 2-8-1976. 6. Sh. Narasimhan also argued that Collector of Customs (Appeals) Delhi by his order dated 1-8-1983 in number of appeals in respect of identical cases imported by the appellants held that they were eligib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces. In view of the above, and in view of the fact that the department agrees with the line of argument adopted by the Collector (Appeals) (Sh. N.V. Raghavan Iyer) in his orders dated 7-8-1983, the department does not propose to contest the present appeals. Under the circumstances, it is also submitted that it is not considered necessary for the Department to agree or disagree with the various averments and arguments made by the appellants in writing or otherwise in the present matter. 10. During the course of arguments, a question was put by the Bench, whether on a claim for proper assessment and classification being admitted by the respondent the Tribunal could still enter into the question of correct classification and assessment or the Tribunal ought to mechanically accept the concession or admission and give relief to the appellants accordingly. On this aspect, Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, SDR who appeared with Shri K.V. Kunhikrishnan, D.R. on the date this issue was heard submitted that in such a case the proper course for the Tribunal to adopt would be to accept the admission or concession and allow the appeal. His argument was that in such a case no dispute survived b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er ignoring such admission though occasion for use of this power should seldom arise. As to when or in what cases this should be done cannot be exhaustively laid down in an inflexible formula. 12. In the present appeals, as already pointed out, two items have already been held by the Tribunal to be Computer sub-systems and peripherals. About the remaining three items the question whether they are computer peripherals or sub-systems is primarily a question of fact. There would appear no good reason for not accepting the concession or admission made by the respondent that use of the expression sub-system in the two earlier notifications and peripherals in the third notification was intended to convey the same meaning. In view of this concession or admission being accepted, it is not necessary to discuss in detail the technical and other data adduced by the appellants. 13. As a result, the orders under appeal are set aside and the appellants granted benefit of Notification Nos. 272-Cus., dated 2-8-1976, 47-Cus., dated 1-3-1979 and 115-Cus., dated 19-6-1980, as they were applicable at the time of each import. 14. The appeals arc thus allowed with consequential relief to the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
