Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1997 (2) TMI 223

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Tariff for countervailing duty. The importers contested the classification and claimed classification under Heading 82.06 read with Heading 84.45/48 attracting rate of duty under Notification 57/82-Customs and filed refund claim for the differential duty. In support of their claim, they cited an order dated 1-7-1979 of the Appellate Collector of Customs passed in the case of identical goods wherein assessment under Heading 82.01/04 was rejected in preference to classification under Heading 68.01/16(2). Reliance was also placed on an order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) dated 25-4-1984 holding similar goods in the case of same importers as classifiable under Heading 82.06 read with Heading 84.45/48 read with Notification No. 57/82. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ory Notes to Heading 82.02 to the CCN. Citing the relevant portion from the CCN relating to Heading 68.04, it was claimed that only those saws which have cutting teeth and which are covered by abrasives would fall under 82.02 and the impugned goods would fall under Heading 82.06 only. Reference was again made to the two orders of the two Collector (Appeals) dated earlier than the impugned appeals, to support the various claims made by them. Shri Sogani referred to the following judgment and claimed that the decisions were relevant : 1. 1993 (64) E.L.T. 85 (Tribunal) - Collector of Customs v. Manjushree Minerals Ltd. 2. 1990 (50) E.L.T. 536 (Tribunal) - Granite (India) v. Collector of Cus. & C. Ex. As regards the classific....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed which machines were classifiable under Heading 84.45/48. 6. The dispute narrows down to whether the disputed goods are `saws' or whether they are `knives and cutting blades'. These terms although described in the various notes, have not been defined in the tariff. The McGraw Hill Dictionary of Science and Technology Terms defines `knife' as `a sharp, edged blade for cutting'. It describes a saw as "any of various tools consisting of a thin, usually steel, blade with continual cutting teeth on the edge." Heading 82.08 covers knives and blades for metal working, for weld working, for kitchen appliances for agricultural, horticulture or forestry machines. The residuary category includes such goods used in the leather, paper, textil....