TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Importer's Machine Qualifies as 'Vickers Hardness Tester' under Customs Notification</h1> The Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals) decision in favor of M/s. Blue Star Ltd., ruling that their imported machine qualified as a 'Vickers Hardness ... Exemption to machine based on specific use or function Issues:Interpretation of Notification No. 49/78-Cus dated 1st March, 1978 for exemption claim on imported Brinell-cum-Vickers Hardness Testing Machine.Detailed Analysis:1. Show Cause Notice and Initial Decision:The Additional Secretary to the Government of India issued a review show cause notice to M/s. Blue Star Ltd. under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The dispute revolved around the import of a Brinell-cum-Vickers Hardness Testing Machine and the claim for duty exemption under Notification No. 49/78-Cus., dated 1st March, 1978. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim, stating that the exemption was only applicable to Vickers Testing Machine, not the Brinell-cum-Vickers machine.2. Appeal to Collector (Appeals) and Decision:M/s. Blue Star Ltd. appealed to the Collector (Appeals), arguing that their imported machine was a Vickers Hardness Tester and thus eligible for the exemption. The Collector (Appeals) ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that the machine primarily conducted Vickers hardness tests, with limited Brinell testing capabilities. The Collector granted the benefit of the concessional duty rate under the notification.3. Appeal to the Tribunal - Revenue's Argument:The revenue appealed to the Tribunal, contending that the notification should be strictly construed, and any machine performing additional functions should not qualify for the exemption. The appellant cited various judgments to support their argument and emphasized that the benefit of the notification was limited to machines specifically conducting Vickers Tests.4. Respondent's Defense:M/s. Blue Star Ltd. argued that their machine was entitled to the exemption as it performed both Brinell and Vickers tests, each serving different purposes in hardness testing. They referenced a previous Tribunal judgment in support of their position and urged the rejection of the revenue's appeal.5. Tribunal's Decision:After considering the arguments and reviewing the facts, the Tribunal found that the imported machine met the description of a 'Vickers Hardness tester' as outlined in the notification. The Tribunal highlighted that previous judgments supported the notion that machines capable of additional functions could still qualify for exemption. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the Collector (Appeals) decision in favor of M/s. Blue Star Ltd.6. Conclusion:The Tribunal's decision rested on the machine's conformity with the notification's description and the precedent set by earlier judgments. The appeals were ultimately dismissed, affirming the entitlement of M/s. Blue Star Ltd. to the duty exemption under Notification No. 49/78-Cus., dated 1st March, 1978.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
