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>Customs Tariff Classification Upheld: Rupture Disks as Spare Parts</h1> <h3>COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS Versus TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS</h3> COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS Versus TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 211 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Classification of Rupture Disks under the Customs Tariff.2. Applicability of Sectional and Chapter Notes for classification.3. Refund claim based on re-classification.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Rupture Disks under the Customs Tariff:The primary issue pertains to the correct classification of 9 Rupture Disks imported for use in Sulphuric Acid Plants. The Revenue classified these under Heading No. 73.33/40 CT and 68 CET, based on the material of manufacture (stainless steel). The respondent sought re-classification under Heading 84.14 or 84.17(I) CT, arguing that the Rupture Disks are specifically designed for industrial use in their combustion furnace, not as plain sheets but with necessary bolt holes for direct fitting. The respondent emphasized that the disks are made of a special acid and corrosion-resistant alloy, not manufactured indigenously, and are integral to the plant's safety mechanism.2. Applicability of Sectional and Chapter Notes for Classification:The Tribunal examined the technical details provided by the respondent, which highlighted that the Rupture Disks are designed to protect the furnace from overheating and pressure, automatically giving way at temperatures exceeding 1200^0C. The Tribunal referred to Section Note 2 to Section XVI, which outlines the classification rules for parts of machines. According to Note 2, parts of machines described in Chapters 84 and 85 are to be classified under their respective headings unless they fall under specific exceptions. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Ballarpur Industries Limited v. Collector of Customs, which reinforced the importance of adhering to Sectional and Chapter Notes for classification purposes.3. Refund Claim Based on Re-classification:The respondent had filed a refund claim, arguing that the Rupture Disks should have been assessed under Heading 84.14 or 84.17(I), attracting a lower customs duty rate of 40% + 20%, instead of being classified under Heading 73.33/40. The Tribunal reviewed the letter dated 20-12-1982 from the respondent to the Assistant Collector, which detailed the technical specifications and argued that the disks should be classified as spare parts for plant and machinery, not based on the material of construction. The Tribunal upheld the respondent's argument, concluding that the Rupture Disks are classifiable under Heading No. 84.17(I), aligning with the Collector (Appeals)'s findings.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, affirming that the 9 Rupture Disks are correctly classifiable under Heading No. 84.17(I). The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to Sectional and Chapter Notes for accurate classification and supported the respondent's refund claim based on the re-classification.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
