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>Tribunal Grants Duty Concession for Accessories Imported with Shuttleless Looms</h1> <h3>ANGLE FRENCH TEXTILES Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS</h3> The Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay in filing supplementary appeals as the main appeal was filed within the stipulated time frame. Regarding the ... Accessories imported along with machines Issues: Condonation of delay in filing supplementary appeals; Rate of duty for accessories imported with machines.Condonation of Delay: The appellants filed for condonation of delay in filing supplementary appeals, which was allowed by the Tribunal based on the main appeal being filed within the stipulated time frame.Rate of Duty for Accessories: The dispute revolved around the rate of duty to be applied to accessories imported with shuttleless looms from Russia. The Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963 state that accessories imported along with an article should be charged at the same rate if no separate charge is made for them. The appellants claimed the benefit of this rule, arguing that the contract and invoices showed a consolidated price for both machinery and accessories, indicating no separate charge. The Revenue contended that the contract clearly separated prices for machinery and accessories. The Tribunal analyzed the documents and held that even though an appendix to the contract showed split prices, it did not constitute separate charging. Thus, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that there was no separate charge for accessories, and they were eligible for the duty concession.Analysis: The Tribunal carefully examined the contract, invoices, and submissions from both sides. It emphasized that under the Accessories (Control) Rules, accessories should not be charged separately. Despite the appendix in the contract showing split prices, the Tribunal clarified that this did not amount to separate charging. The Tribunal relied on a previous judgment to support its decision. Ultimately, it concluded that the appellants were not charged separately for machinery and accessories, leading to the allowance of the appeals with consequential relief and setting aside of the impugned order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
