1987 (10) TMI 251 - AT - Customs

Customs Duty Exemption Denied for Gear Hobbing Machine under Notification No. 40/78

RALLIWOLF LIMITED Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

The Tribunal upheld the denial of customs duty exemption for an imported Gear Hobbing Machine under Notification No. 40/78. Despite the appellants' ... Machines Issues:1. Interpretation of Notification No. 40/78 for customs duty exemption on imported Gear Hobbing Machine.2. Determination of the classification of the imported machine as per the notification.3. Evaluation of the technical descriptions provided by both parties.4. Consideration of mis-declaration in the invoice and its impact on entitlement to the exemption.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the entitlement to customs duty exemption under Notification No. 40/78 for an imported Gear Hobbing Machine. The appellants imported a machine and claimed re-assessment under the notification. The dispute centered around whether the machine fell within the scope of the notification, specifically Entry No. 4 covering 'automatic straight bevel/Hypoid Gear Generating Machine.' The Assistant Collector of Customs initially ruled against the appellants, stating that the imported machine did not qualify under the mentioned entry. The Appellate Collector of Customs upheld this decision, determining that the machine was a spiral bevel generating machine and not eligible for the exemption.The appellants appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the machine produced hypoid bevel gears and should be exempt under the notification. Their consultant referenced technical literature and catalog descriptions to support the classification of the machine as eligible for the exemption. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the machine description in the invoice aligned with the notification, while the appellants' catalog description differed. The respondent highlighted mis-declaration concerns and argued against the appellants' entitlement to the exemption.After considering the arguments and technical evidence presented, the Tribunal examined the machine's main function based on the catalog description. The Tribunal found that the machine was primarily intended for producing small spiral bevel gears, not hypoid gears as claimed by the appellants. The technical literature referenced did not sway the Tribunal's decision, leading to the conclusion that the machine, FK-41B, did not qualify for the customs duty exemption under Notification No. 40/78. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings and dismissed the appeal.In summary, the judgment clarified the interpretation of the notification for customs duty exemption, determined the machine's classification based on its main function, evaluated the technical descriptions provided by both parties, and addressed concerns regarding mis-declaration in the invoice impacting the entitlement to the exemption. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the facts, technical evidence, and relevant legal provisions, ultimately upholding the denial of the exemption for the imported Gear Hobbing Machine.