TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Tribunal rules in favor of GSFC in classification dispute over bearing analyser BEA-52</h1> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. (GSFC), in a classification dispute regarding the bearing analyser ... Classification Issues: Classification of bearing analyser BEA-52 under Customs Tariff headingsAnalysis:1. Classification Dispute: The appeal concerns the classification of the bearing analyser BEA-52 under the Customs Tariff. The appellant, M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. (GSFC), initially paid Customs duty under heading No. 90.28(1) but later filed a refund claim asserting that the goods should be classified under heading No. 90.28(4) read with heading No. 90.25(1) of the Tariff.2. Appellant's Argument: The appellant's advocate argued that the product literature indicated that the bearing analyser BEA-52 was for physical analysis of bearings. He contended that the correct classification should be under sub-heading (4) of heading No. 90.28, as the non-electric counterpart of the electrical bearings analyser BEA-52 was classifiable under heading No. 90.25.3. Respondent's Position: The respondent, represented by Mrs. R. Pant, contended that the goods were simply bearing analysers for checking lubrication and not for any physical analysis. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) supported this view.4. Product Analysis: The Tribunal examined the product literature of the bearing analyser BEA-52, which revealed that it measured lubrication and mechanical conditions in ball and roller bearings. The instrument checked fatigue in bearings, related to oil film thickness, installation, usage, and lubrication. It was emphasized that the analyser helped in condition monitoring and planning bearing replacements in advance.5. Legal Framework: Heading No. 90.25 pertains to non-electrical instruments for physical or chemical analysis, while heading No. 90.28(4) covers electrical instruments and apparatus, with non-electric counterparts falling under specific headings. The Tribunal noted the wide coverage of sub-heading (4) of heading No. 90.28, with a duty rate of 40%.6. Residuary Entry: The appellant argued that classification under sub-heading (1) of heading No. 90.28 as a residuary entry was incorrect, as the bearing analyser BEA-52 should be classified under sub-heading (4) of heading No. 90.28, considering the Tariff's scheme and the scope of heading No. 90.25 in conjunction with 90.28(4).7. Decision: After considering all aspects, the Tribunal disagreed with the Collector of Customs (Appeals) and allowed the appeal. The Tribunal held that the bearing analyser BEA-52 was correctly classifiable under sub-heading (4) of heading No. 90.28, rather than the residuary entry. The order was made accordingly, in favor of the appellant, GSFC.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
