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>Maintenance spares for project qualify for concessional duty rate under Notification 315/83-Cus.</h1> <h3>COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Versus PUNSUMI (I) LTD.</h3> COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Versus PUNSUMI (I) LTD. - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 492 (Tribunal) Issues:Eligibility of spare parts for maintenance of a project for exemption under Notification 315/83-Cus.Detailed Analysis:The judgment revolves around the eligibility of spare parts imported for maintenance of a project for exemption under Notification 315/83-Cus. The appeal by the Revenue challenges the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) regarding the applicability of the said notification to spare parts for an electronic industry project. The dispute arose when the Department contended that spare parts were erroneously granted the benefit of Notification 315/83, which provides a concessional rate of duty for goods imported for the initial setup or substantial expansion of an industrial unit for electronic items manufacture. The lower appellate authority disagreed with the Department's view, stating that maintenance spares are not excluded from the coverage of the notification and that Heading 98.01 should be read as a whole, not as two distinct parts. The central issue is whether spare parts qualify for the exemption under Notification 315/83.The Tribunal examined the relevant notifications, specifically Notification 315/83 and 132/85, which govern the duty exemptions for goods under Heading 98.01 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Department of Electronics certified that spare parts, within a certain value threshold, were essential for the substantial expansion of the electronic unit, recommending the concessional duty rate under Notification 315/83. The Tribunal concurred with the view that spare parts cannot be excluded from the notification's coverage based on the term 'goods.' It was established that spare parts are integral to the operation and expansion of the project, aligning with the purpose of the notification. The Tribunal emphasized that exemptions should not be restricted beyond the explicit language of the exemption clause.Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd., the Tribunal highlighted the principles governing the interpretation of exemption provisions. It emphasized that once ambiguity regarding applicability is resolved and the subject falls within the notification, a liberal construction should be adopted. In this context, the Tribunal concluded that maintenance spares are eligible for the benefit of Notification 315/83, and the notification should be applied in its entirety without imposing additional restrictions. The Tribunal also affirmed that Heading 98.01 should be construed as a single entry, not as two distinct parts.In conclusion, the Tribunal held that maintenance spares imported for the project fell within the scope of Notification 315/83 and qualified for the concessional duty rate of 35% ad valorem. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the eligibility of spare parts for the duty exemption under the notification.
TaxTMI 