TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (7) TMI 181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts imported Knitting Machine Needles and the same were classified under Heading 9806 and the benefit of Notification No. 68/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987 was extended to these goods. The appellants, however, claimed the benefit of Notification No. 69/87-Cus. which was denied by the Assistant Collector on the ground that these are Needles of Domestic Hand Knitting Machines and not Industrial Knitting Machines. The appeal against the Assistant Collector's order was rejected leading to the present appeal. 2. Appearing for the appellants, Shri Madhav Rao, ld. Counsel, contended that the knitting machines for which the needles were imported are not domestic knitting machines. He referred to the catalogue for the various models on record and pointe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dustry is one carried on wholly or partly at home. The criterion to be adopted is whether the machine is of a kind generally used at home and the Collector (Appeals) had found that it is so in this case. As to what would constitute domestic appliance, the ld. D.R. cited the Supreme Court decision in the case of Nat Steel Corporation v. Collector of Central Excise - 1988 (34) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.). 3. On a careful consideration of the submissions made, it is seen that the question for decision, herein, is whether the needles imported can be considered as needles for knitting machines other than domestic so as to be eligible for exemption under Notification 69/87 under Heading 98.06 CTA '75. This notification grants exemption to goods falling un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Customs v. Simac Group (India) - 1985 (22) E.L.T. 115. As against this, the appellants, herein, place reliance on a subsequent decision of the Cegat in the case of K. Mohan & Co. (Exports) v. Collector of Customs - 1989 (42) E.L.T. 468. On a perusal of these two decisions, it is seen that in the Simac case, the question was classification of certain parts imported for Model DX 2000 knitting machines being manufactured by the respondents, therein, who had claimed that model was an industrial knitting machine. The Tribunal perused the catalogues of the various models manufactured and observed, "It is significant that in this leaflet Model DX 4000 is described as "the perfect machine for semi-professionals and cottage industries". Now, if the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as against the description of the other models which were said to be meant for semi-professionals and cottage industries. In the present case before us, the leaflet describes the knitting machine as being used for knitting garments in the cottage industry. There is nothing in the leaflet to indicate its domestic use which was the case in respect of the model of knitting machine considered in the Simac case (supra) by the Tribunal. Further, a perusal of the leaflet also shows separate reference to domestic appliances produced by them after the reference to the manufacture of complete range of hand-knitting machine. It is stated in the leaflet,"..... the company has introduced a range of revolutionary new products in the field of domestic ap....