1992 (1) TMI 209 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Duty Rates for Electric Instruments, Appeals Dismissed

MACHINE TOOLS (INDIA) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

The Tribunal rejected the supplementary appeals' delay condonation, upheld the denial of concessional duty rate for parts of electric measuring ... Exemption Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing supplementary appeals.2. Classification and applicable rate of duty for parts of electrically operated measuring instruments.3. Applicability of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 394-Cus., dated 2-8-1976.4. Relevance of the Bombay High Court decision in Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India.Detailed Analysis:1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Supplementary Appeals:The appellants filed supplementary appeals against the orders dated 21-8-1984 and 22-8-1984, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta. The delay in filing these supplementary appeals was condoned because the main appeals were filed within the prescribed period. The Tribunal emphasized that the main appeals were timely, which justified condoning the delay in the supplementary appeals.2. Classification and Applicable Rate of Duty for Parts of Electrically Operated Measuring Instruments:The appellants filed six Bills of Entry for the clearance of goods declared as 'Parts of electrically operated measuring instruments.' The parts were assessed under Heading Nos. 90.29(1) read with 90.28(4) and 90.16(1) of the Customs Tariff. The appellants claimed a refund of duty, arguing that the goods were assessable at a concessional rate under Notification No. 394-Cus., dated 2-8-1976. However, the Assistant Collector and subsequently the Collector (Appeals) rejected the claims, stating that the concessional rate for the complete article under any exemption notification would not apply to parts of that article.3. Applicability of Concessional Rate of Duty under Notification No. 394-Cus., dated 2-8-1976:The appellants contended that the effective rate in terms of the Notification alone applies to the goods in question. They argued that the main article, electrical measuring instruments under Heading No. 90.28(4), are entitled to a concessional rate, and the same rate should apply to parts under Heading No. 90.29(1). The Collector (Appeals) held that the reference to the rate of duty under Heading Nos. 90.29(1) or 90.28(4) is to the statutory rate under Heading No. 90.16(1) and not the concessional rate under the Notification.4. Relevance of the Bombay High Court Decision in Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India:The Tribunal referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which addressed whether the benefit of an exemption notification could apply to parts of an instrument. The High Court held that the words 'rate of duty applicable to' in a heading refer only to the rate specified in the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, not to the rate after considering any exemption under Section 25. The Tribunal found this decision directly relevant and concluded that the words 'The rate applicable to non-electric counter-parts' against Heading No. 90.28(4) implied only the rate specified against Heading No. 90.16(1) in the First Schedule, not the concessional rate under any exemption notification.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that since Heading Nos. 90.29(1) and 90.28 were not specifically mentioned in Notification No. 394-Cus., dated 2-8-1976, it must be assumed that the Central Government did not intend to extend the benefit of the exemption to goods covered by these headings. Consequently, the appeals were rejected, affirming the statutory rate specified against Heading No. 90.16(1) as applicable.