Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether imported M.S. plates used for fabrication of bare bottoms or steel bottoms as replacement of worn-out parts in mercury electrolytic cells were entitled to concessional benefit under Notification No. 58/87-Cus.
Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 58/87-Cus. applied only where the specified goods were imported for the purpose of manufacture of machinery falling under Chapters 84 or 85. The evidence showed that the imported M.S. plates were used for renovation and replacement of worn-out bottoms of existing mercury electrolytic cells, and not for bringing into existence a new machinery. The fabricated bare bottoms were at best parts of the machinery and were classifiable as parts under Heading 84.79/ Sub-heading 8479.90, not as machinery having an individual function. Since exemption notifications must be strictly construed, an intermediate product or replacement part did not satisfy the condition of manufacture of machinery.
Conclusion: The claim for concessional benefit was not allowable, as the imported goods were used for repair or replacement of parts and not for manufacture of machinery covered by the notification.
Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification confined to goods used in the manufacture of machinery cannot be extended to imported materials used only for renovation, repair, or replacement of parts of existing machinery.