1994 (3) TMI 115 - HC - Customs

Court upholds duty exemption for company importing replacement part; inclusive definition of 'person' applied.

The Court held that the Private Limited Company was entitled to duty exemption on the replacement part imported for a defective machine, despite the ... Exemption Issues:Interpretation of exemption notification for customs duty on replacement parts imported by a Private Limited Company.Analysis:The case involved a Private Limited Company engaged in manufacturing steel forging that imported a Multi Spindle Copying Duplicating and Profile Milling Machine from Italy. The machine had a defect, and the company imported a Contour Scan Valve as a replacement part, seeking exemption from customs duty under a notification issued by the Government of India. The exemption notification allowed duty exemption for replacement parts of defective articles if the defective articles were the private personal properties of the importer. The Assistant Collector of Customs denied the duty exemption, stating that the notification applied only to private personal property of an individual, not a company. The Court held that the Assistant Collector's decision was erroneous as it incorrectly interpreted the term 'private personal property.' The Court emphasized that the notification aimed to benefit importers of defective parts, regardless of being an individual or a company. The Court referred to the definition of 'person' under the General Clauses Act, which includes companies, associations, or bodies of individuals. The Court concluded that the company was entitled to the duty exemption.The Department's Counsel cited a decision by CEGAT that supported the Assistant Collector's view, but the Court found that decision to be based on an erroneous interpretation of the notification. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating that they were entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification for the replacement article. Since the petitioners had already cleared the consignment by providing a bank guarantee, the Court directed the discharge of the bank guarantee. The Court made no order as to costs in the case.