Exemption for parts of casting machines applies despite broad tariff classification where the notification expressly covers the goods.

Copper moulds and copper mould tubes used as parts of casting machines were treated as eligible for auxiliary customs duty exemption under Serial No. 37 of Notification No. 112/87-Cus. because the notification expressly covered casting machines of a kind used in metallurgy and metal foundries, including their parts. The fact that the goods were classified under Heading 98.06 as parts of machinery did not defeat the specific exemption, especially where customs authorities had themselves identified them as parts of casting machines. The commentary states that a broader tariff classification cannot override a clear exemption for a named article and its parts, and the refund rejection was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether copper moulds or copper mould tubes used as parts of casting machines were entitled to exemption from auxiliary duty of customs under Serial No. 37 of Notification No. 112/87-Cus., notwithstanding their classification under Heading 98.06.

Analysis: The goods had been assessed under Heading 98.06 as parts of machinery, equipment, appliances, instruments and articles of Chapters 84, 85, 86, 89 and 90, and the basic customs exemption under Notification No. 69/87-Cus. had already been granted. For auxiliary duty, Serial No. 37 of Notification No. 112/87-Cus. exempted converters, ladles, ingots moulds, and casting machines of a kind used in metallurgy and in metal foundries, including parts thereof. Since the customs authorities themselves had treated the goods as parts of casting machines, the specific exemption could not be denied merely because the goods were classified under a general tariff heading. The narrower departmental view would defeat the clear scope of the notification and was inconsistent with the structure of Heading 98.06 and the principle that an exemption for a named article extends to its parts where the intention is manifest.

Conclusion: The goods were eligible for exemption from auxiliary duty of customs under Serial No. 37 of Notification No. 112/87-Cus., and the rejection of the refund claim was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the refusal of refund was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification specifically covers an article and its parts, the benefit cannot be denied by relying on a broader tariff classification if the goods are otherwise identified as such parts.

---