1983 (7) TMI 316 - AT - Customs

Tribunal interprets Notification No. 49, rules Gear Tester qualifies for concessional duty rate

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in the case concerning the interpretation of Notification No. 49 dated 1-3-1978 for a concessional rate of duty. It was ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of Notification No. 49 dated 1-3-1978 for concessional rate of duty.2. Classification of Goulder Mikron Make 2A Rolling Gear Tester under Customs Act, 1962.3. Determination of the machine's function as a Gear Eccentricity Tester or Rolling Gear Tester.4. Consideration of technical evidence, manufacturer's certificate, and DGTD clarification.Analysis:1. The case involved the interpretation of Notification No. 49 dated 1-3-1978 for a concessional rate of duty. The dispute arose when a Goulder Mikron Make 2A Rolling Gear Tester was imported and assessed under Heading 90.16(2), but the appellants claimed it should be reassessed at a lower duty rate specified in the notification.2. The Customs authorities initially held that the Rolling Gear Tester did not fall under the items specified in the notification for concessional duty. The Asstt. Collector and the Appellate Collector concluded that the machine imported did not meet the criteria specified for Gear Eccentricity Tester under the notification, leading to the confirmation of the assessment under a different heading.3. The appellants contended that the Rolling Gear Tester was capable of determining individual errors of eccentricity, profile, and tooth spacing, supported by technical evidence from the Goulder Mikron Roller Tester Catalogue, Import Policy, DGTD confirmation, and manufacturer's certificate. They argued that the machine functioned as a Gear Eccentricity Tester, as indicated by relevant engineering standards.4. The Tribunal considered the technical evidence presented by the appellants, including the manufacturer's certificate and DGTD clarification, to determine the essential function of the Rolling Gear Tester. The Tribunal noted the absence of refutation by the department and concluded that the machine indeed functioned as an eccentricity tester. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.