1996 (10) TMI 246

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Jha, SDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. -  This appeal arises from order-in-appeal dated 9-6-1989 passed by Collector (Appeals), Bombay confirming the order-in-original denying the benefit of Notification No. 146/86 in respect of parts of ball bearing by applying Interpretative Rule 2(a) of the Customs Tariff. In this case the question of classification of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... more than 0.457 150% ad valorem plus Rs. 17 per bearing       (d) 0.633 or more but not more than 0.933 100% ad valorem plus Rs. 26 per bearing       (ii) Others 15% ad valorem   The notification exempts the goods specified in Column (2) of the table and which fall under Heading 84.82 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... invoking Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules. In this regard, he relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Guest Keen Williams Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta as reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 68. In this citation, the Tribunal has referred to number of judgments and it has been categorically laid down that it is an accepted position that notification should be interpreted on the basi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that for interpreting strict provisions of Notification, Section Notes, Chapter Notes or even the interpretation Rules cannot be applied. The notification is required to be interpreted strictly. This view has also been recently reiterated by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Maruti Udyog Ltd., Sipani Automobilies Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bangalore as reported in 1996....