TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1159
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....discharged duty @ 3% BCD, 10% SW surcharge and 5% IGST. Alleging that the imported goods had been wrongly classified as parts of aircrafts, investigation was initiated by the Department by recording the statement of the Chief Manager (Stores) of the appellant and collecting evidences in this regard. On completion of the investigation, show-cause notice was issued to them on 27.08.2020 proposing classification of the imported DVR under CTH 85219090 and demanding differential duty of Rs.9,45,13,368/- in respect of the 13 Bills of Entry filed during the said period along with interest and proposal for penalty. On adjudication, the learned Commissioner directed reclassification of the product under CTH 85219090, confirmed the differential duty along with applicable interest and dropped the penalty proceedings. Hence, the present appeal. 3.1. At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture, repair and overhauling of aircrafts, helicopters and aircraft/helicopter parts which are used and operated by the Indian Air Force under the control of the Ministry of Defence. Appellant imported DVRs solely designed for use in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be read with a conjoint manner in applying the test of suitability for use solely or primarily under Section XVII. In the present case, the principal use of goods is determinative of classification. He has submitted that where two views are possible in the matter of interpretation of a charging section, the view favourable to the assessee must be preferred as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CC(Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar [2018(7) TMI 1826 - Supreme Court (LB)]. He has submitted that there is no estoppel in law against any party and no significance is to be attached to the appellant's admission or own classification of the goods which are imported. In support, they referred to the judgment in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. & Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. Vs. UOI [1983(13) ELT 1566 (SC)]. 4.1. Per contra, the learned AR for the Revenue reiterating the findings of the learned Commissioner has submitted that in his statement Shri P.S. Chandrasekhar explained the role of the DVR which is fixed in the cockpit and it is used for recording the pilots view of the flight in digital mode, both video and audio. The said recording after every flight is analysed by the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itions mentioned thereunder. In the present case, the imported goods viz. DVR having failed the test of all three conditions mentioned in the HSN, it is not forming part of the aircraft. Referring to Note 1(l) of the Section XVI, he has submitted that it excludes articles of Section XVII, wherein Note 2(f) of Section XVII excludes electrical equipment falling under Chapter 85. Hence, goods specifically fall under Chapter 85 cannot be considered to fall under Chapter 88 (articles of Section XVII). In support, he has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Videocon Industries Ltd. [2023 (384) ELT 628 (SC)]. Further, he has submitted that the ratio of judgment referred to by the appellant in the case of Dilipkumar & Company [2018(362) ELT 198 (Bom.)] is not applicable to the present case as the said principle sought to be relied is relating to the taxability of imported goods but in the case in hand, the issue pertains to benefit of effective rate of duty under Notification No.50/2017 dated 30.06.2017. Therefore, even going by the contention of the appellant, the issue being benefit by way of an exemption notification, it should be decided in favour of the Rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....they are identifiable as for the goods of this Section: (a) ... .. ... (f) electrical machinery or equipment (Chapter 85); .. ... ... ... 3. References in Chapters 86 to 88 to "parts" or "accessories" do not apply to parts or accessories which are not suitable for use solely or principally with the articles of those Chapters. A part or accessory which answers to a description in two or more of the headings of those Chapters is to be classified under that heading which corresponds to the principal use of that part of accessory. 9. The claim of the appellant is that DVRs are parts and accessories of the aircraft classifiable under CTH 88033000 whereas the claim of the Revenue is that as per Section Note 2(f) of Section XVII, electrical machinery or equipment (Chapter 85) has been excluded from the ambit of Chapter 88; hence, the correct classification is CTH 85219090. The exclusion clause contained in Note 2(f) to Section XVII whether to be applicable in understanding the classification of DVR imported by the appellant under CTH 88033000 meant and used Soley and principally in Hawk Military training air craft can be resolved re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les to which the expressions "parts" and "parts and accessories" mentioned in Chapter 86 do not apply. Note 2(f) reads as follows :- "(1) xxxx (2) xxx (a) xxxx (b) xxxx (c) xxxx (d) xxxx (e) xxxx (f) electrical machinery or equipment (Chapter 85)". 33. Note 2(f) is relied upon by the Revenue, in view of the fact that Chapter Heading 8608 uses the words "parts of the foregoing" after the words "Railway or tramway track fixtures and fittings" etc. Chapter Heading 8608 does not specifically mention "electrical relays". The assessee's contention is that "it is part of the railway signalling safety or traffic control equipment" and that, therefore, Relays manufactured by them would fall under Chapter Heading 8608 due to the usage of the word "parts". It is this contention that is sought to be repelled by the Authorities by relying upon Note 2(f) of Section XVII. 34. Though at first blush, Note 2(f) seems to apply to the case on hand, it may not, upon a deeper scrutiny. 35. Note 3 of Section XVII reads as follows : "References in Chapters 86 to 88 to "parts" or "accessories" do not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whether "Car Matting" would fall under Chapter 57 of CETA, 1985 or under the heading "Carpets and Other Textile Floor Coverings" or classifiable under Chapter 87 which relates to "Vehicles other than Railway or Tramway Rolling Stock and Parts and Accessories thereof". In other words, the classification dispute was between Chapter heading 87089900 and 57039090 of CETA,1985. Referring to the relevant Chapter Notes of Chapter 57 and 87, Section Notes 2 of Section 17, relevant HSN Explanatory Notes and the Circular No.117/28/95-CX dated. 17.04.1995 relating to dutiability of Car Matting and Non-woven materials in rolling form, held as follows:- 23. "The common parlance test", "marketability test", "popular meaning test" are all tools for interpretation to arrive at a decision on proper classification of a tariff entry. These tests, however, would be required to be applied if a particular tariff entry is capable of being classified in more than one heads. So far as subject-dispute is concerned, we have already referred to Chapter Note 1 of Chapter 57. This note stipulates that carpets and other floor coverings would mean floor coverings in which textile materials serve as the ....