1983 (5) TMI 232

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case, the appellants' prayer is twofold- (1) countervailing duty charged on Porcelain Plug Valves under Item 24-B(4) of the Central Excise Tariff should be refunded as these valves were articles of machinery and not Porcelain Ware and (2) Explosion Proof Lighting Fixtures should be given the benefit of exemption Notification No. 82/60-Customs. During the hearing before us today, they stated that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rd Plant and were very essential for the proper working of the said plant. They relied on Delhi High Court judgment in Writ Petition No. 35 of 1968 and IPA No. 95 of 1976 wherein the said High Court had held the tractor loader as a component part of the plant. In the same way, the appellants urged, the special lighting fixtures were also a component part of their plant. 2. The Departments' r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cause there was no specific tariff item for porcelain ware in the ICT, the goods could not have been assessed as components of electrical apparatus. In that case, proper Tariff Item for them would have been the residuary Item 87 of the ICT. From the construction of the goods as well as from their classification for basic customs duty purpose, it is quite evident that the subject valves were not me....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was such that they were not required to function as a part or accessory of any machine. These lighting fixtures are not on par with a tractor loader. The tractor loader itself is a piece of machinery. The explosion proof lighting fixtures were just electrical fittings or fixtures to provide safe illumination in the factory area. The two Delhi High Court judgments relied on by the appellants are, t....