1992 (2) TMI 204 - AT - Customs

Appellate Tribunal rules in favor of importers, grants refund for maintenance spares under Project Import Heading 98.01

ECOPLAST (P) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, ruling that the imported machine and maintenance spares, although ... Project Import Issues:1. Interpretation of Notification No. 132/85-Cus. and Notification No. 125 of 1986 regarding duty exemption for imported goods.2. Classification and assessment of essential maintenance spares imported along with machinery under Project Import Heading 98.01.3. Applicability of concessions under different notifications to imported goods.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved a case where the appellants, engaged in manufacturing plastic films, imported a Multi-layer Extruding Machine along with standard spares. They sought to avail the concession for Project Imports under Heading 9801 of the Customs Tariff. The Customs Authorities allotted a registration number under the Project Imports Regulations, 1986. The imported machine was assessed to a basic duty of 10% under Notification No. 125 of 1986 instead of 30% under Notification No. 132 of 1985. The appellants claimed a refund of differential duty for the maintenance spares under Heading 98.01, but the Collector rejected the claim, stating that the spares were not eligible under Heading 98.01 as the main equipment was assessed under the same heading.The appellants argued that even with the benefit of Notification No. 125 of 1986, the machine remained covered by Project Import Heading 98.01, allowing the spares to be assessed under the same heading. They cited relevant decisions to support their stance. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that since the machine was assessed under Notification No. 125 of 1986 for Chapter 84 goods, the spares could not be considered under Heading 98.01. They relied on a Madras High Court judgment to support their position.The Tribunal analyzed the case, focusing on whether goods under Heading 98.01 would remain covered by it even if another exemption was availed. They noted that goods imported under Project Import Regulations were classifiable under Heading 98.01 and could avail other exemptions. Referring to Notification No. 132/85, the Tribunal emphasized that goods under Heading 98.01 could benefit from any other exemption. They cited previous decisions to support this interpretation.The Tribunal distinguished the Madras High Court judgment cited by the Revenue, emphasizing that in the present case, the specific provision in Notification No. 132/85 allowed goods under Heading 98.01 to claim other exemptions. They concluded that the imported machine and spares, although assessed under a concessional rate, were covered by Heading 98.01. Therefore, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, granting them consequential relief.In summary, the judgment clarifies the interpretation of notifications regarding duty exemptions for imported goods, the classification of essential maintenance spares under Project Import Heading 98.01, and the applicability of concessions under different notifications to imported goods.