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

2001 (2) TMI 233

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... manufacture of machine tools. The department proposed to deny the exemption on the ground that the machine was both a vertical and horizontal surface grinding machine. In other words, it was so constructed that it was capable of surface grinding, both on the horizontal plane as well as the vertical plane. The Assistant Collector passed orders denying the exemption on the ground that such a machine was beyond the scope of the entry, which exempted only a machine, which could grind either vertically or horizontally. On appeal by the importer, the Collector (Appeals), citing a decision of the Tribunal which said that the expression 'or' has sometimes to mean 'and' granted the benefit to the importer. The correctness of this order is challenge....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....achines that perform both vertical and horizontal grinding. The other entries in the notification, of which examples were cited by the departmental representative, make it clear that where intention was to exempt such machines performing more than one function, or a combination of machines, it is made manifest by in the terms of the entry. 4.  It is next contended that the Director General of Technical Development, in the certificate which it issued with regard to the machine, has certified the machine to be entitled to the exemption and therefore it is not open to the Customs authorities to deny it. The judgment of the Bombay High Court in Bombay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI - 1982 (10) E.L.T. 171 is cited in support. One of the cond....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o decide the eligibility of goods to exemption unless, of course, the terms of the exemption itself require such certification. The judgment of the High Court was on different facts. The question before the Court was whether the certificate of the Director General of Technical Development that pyrethrum flowers imported by the manufacturer were a chemical could be disregarded by the Customs department on the ground that this certificate had been obtained under mistake or misrepresentation. The notification inter alia requires a certification from the DGTD or the Director of Industries that the "Chemicals are required for the manufacture of specified goods". The requirement that the authority must certify that the imported material was a ....