TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Customs Act: Tribunal clarifies machinery accessories classification</h1> <h3>HATHWA METALS AND TUBES LIMITED Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS</h3> The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal regarding the Additional Set of Tooling, while rejecting Hathwa's appeal. The judgment clarified the ... Machinery accessories - Mandrel Internal Cooling System Issues:1. Assessment of machinery accessories and spares under Customs Act.2. Interpretation of Notification No. 40/78-Cus.3. Classification of items under Heading 84.45/48 CTA.4. Extension of benefit of exemption notification to specific items.5. Dispute regarding separate values for spares covered under item (iv).Analysis:1. The appeals arose from a common order of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta, involving the assessment of machinery accessories and spares imported by M/s. Hathwa Metals & Tubes. The Customs extended the benefit of Notification for the main machinery but not for all items. The Assistant Collector ordered assessment of spares at the highest rate due to lack of separate values.2. The Appellate Collector extended the benefit of the notification to certain items and ordered assessment on merits for spares with individual values. Hathwa appealed against the refusal to extend the benefit to one item, which was later condoned due to a delay in filing. The Revenue disputed the Appellate Collector's order, leading to a show cause notice by the Government.3. The Government's notice argued that certain items should be classified under Heading 84.45/48 CTA without the benefit of the exemption notification. It highlighted the nature of the Mandrel Cooling Device as an accessory and the separate values provided for certain items. The Revenue emphasized strict interpretation of the notification and the non-essential nature of certain accessories.4. Arguments were presented by both sides regarding the classification and essentiality of the accessories and spares. The Counsel for Hathwa contended that certain items were integral parts of the machinery, while the Revenue emphasized separate values and non-compulsory nature of certain components.5. The Tribunal analyzed each item individually. It upheld the benefit of the notification for the Mandrel Cooling Device, considering it an accessory to the main machine based on the invoice details. However, the Additional Set of Tooling was not considered part of the machine, leading to the rejection of the benefit extension. The spares were assessed separately based on their nature, rejecting the claim that they should be considered part of the machine for the notification benefit.In conclusion, the Revenue's appeal was partly allowed concerning the Additional Set of Tooling, while Hathwa's appeal was rejected. The judgment clarified the assessment and classification of machinery accessories and spares under the Customs Act, emphasizing the importance of separate values and the essentiality of components for the concessional benefits.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
