1997 (12) TMI 440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....from Switzerland a machine described as De-soldering machine in the invoice and Bill of Entry.  The appellants availed exemption under Notification No. 96/91 treating the machine as falling under Ch. H. No. 85.43. The appellants relied on Sl. Nos. 12 and 84 in the Table to the Notification.  The Assistant Collector held that the imported machine was a combination of machines described in the two items, and the combined machine not included in the Table and not covered by the exemption.  This order having been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) the present appeal has been filed. 3. There is no serious dispute about the nature of the imported machine.  The Assistant Collector has described it as consisting of Surfa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nbsp; The Collector (Appeals) has not specifically indicated that the imported machine performs any function other than those which can be performed by machines covered by Sl. Nos. 12 & 84. That is why we treat it as a combined machine, a combination of machines, covered by Sl. Nos. 12 & 84.  It has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Parle Exports Pvt. Ltd., 1988 (38) E.L.T. 741 (S.C.) that expressions in an exemption notification must be understood by the language employed, bearing in mind the context and in the same way in which these are understood in ordinary parlance by people who ordinarily deal with them, and notification must be read as a whole in the context of the other relevant provisions and  liberally i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is reasonable to conclude that the benefit of the notification would be available to a single machine which takes in any two or more covered by the Table to the notification particularly since the department has not alleged that the combined machine in intended to perform any function other than the functions which can be performed by machines shown as Sl. Nos. 12 & 84. 7. We may refer to the decision in the case of Sukeshan Equipment Pvt. Ltd., 1995 (77) E.L.T. 621 (Tribunal) relied on by Shri Thiagaraj, SDR. In that case it was contended that the imported machine was Jig-boring machine covered by Notification No. 40/78.  The Bench by a majority held that though the principal function of the jig-boring machine covered by the no....