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>Classification of 'Synthetic Condensor Rubbing Aprons' as Rubber Articles Upheld under Customs Tariff Act</h1> <h3>SHREE KRISHNA WOOLLEN MILLS (P) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR</h3> SHREE KRISHNA WOOLLEN MILLS (P) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR - 1989 (42) E.L.T. 742 (Tribunal) Issues: Classification of 'Synthetic Condensor Rubbing Aprons' under Customs Tariff Act, 1975In the present appeal, the main issue is the classification under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, of 'Synthetic Condensor Rubbing Aprons' imported by the appellants. The department classified them under heading No. 40.05/16 as rubber articles, while the appellants claimed classification under heading No. 1984.37(1) as parts of textile machinery, which was rejected by lower authorities.The appellants argued that the subject goods are parts of carding machines, supported by evidence such as a leaflet on 'Condenser Rubbers' and a write-up by 'WIRA - Technology and Productivity services for the Wool Textile Industry.' The department did not dispute that the goods are parts of carding machines, allowing the case to proceed on that basis.The appellants relied on an Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision to support their claim, emphasizing that the principle of the decision should apply to their case. Conversely, the Departmental Representative cited a previous decision of the Tribunal to support the department's classification stance.The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions and noted that the Australian Tribunal's decision regarding windscreen wiper blade refills was based on the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature, which is similar to the Indian Customs Tariff Schedule. However, it concluded that the Australian decision was not directly applicable to the present case, as the goods in question, synthetic condenser rubbing aprons, are parts of carding machines and should be classified under heading 40.05/16(1) due to the exclusion under Note 1(a) to Section XVI.Referring to a previous case involving rubber aprons made of synthetic rubber, the Tribunal found that classification under heading 40.05/16(1) was appropriate due to the exclusion of parts of machinery, even if made of rubber, under Note 1(a) to Section XVI. Therefore, the lower authorities' classification of the subject goods under heading 40.05/16(1) was deemed correct, and the appeal was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
