|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 234 Records
-
1987 (6) TMI 317
Issues:
1. Appellants seeking admissible deductions to make assessable values ex-factory.
2. Inability to prove ex-factory sales and substantiate expenses for deductions.
3. Request for remand to Assistant Collector for verification of records and deductions.
4. Department's representative agreeing to remand with conditions.
5. Decision on remand for verification of ex-factory sales and deductions based on Supreme Court judgments.
6. Dispute regarding the quantum of discount for damaged goods.
7. Final decision allowing the appeals by way of remand.
Analysis:
1. The appellants in the case sought admissible deductions from their ex-outstation selling center prices to align the assessable values with ex-factory prices. They argued that the price lists submitted were ex-factory, emphasizing the need for adjustments in the assessable values.
2. Lower authorities contended that the appellants failed to prove the existence of ex-factory sales and lacked substantiation for expenses like transport and handling charges. This lack of evidence led to a dispute regarding the validity of the deductions claimed by the appellants.
3. The appellants presented evidence, including correspondence with the Superintendent and a willingness to provide further verification to establish the ex-factory nature of their sales. They requested a remand to the Assistant Collector for a thorough review of their records and deductions.
4. The department's representative did not object to the appellants' request for remand but suggested the necessity of a Chartered Accountant's certificate to validate the claimed expenses for deductions.
5. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, agreed to remand the matters to the Assistant Collector. The verification process would determine the presence of ex-factory sales, allowing for adjustments based on Supreme Court judgments regarding deductions from ex-outstation selling center prices.
6. An additional point of dispute arose concerning the discount for damaged goods cleared by the appellants. While the lower authorities allowed a minimum discount of 25%, the appellants argued for higher discounts based on the varying nature and extent of damage on different products.
7. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, endorsing the appellants' request for verification of deductions and discounts, ensuring a fair and reasonable assessment of the assessable values.
-
1987 (6) TMI 316
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the assessment of stopper heads imported by M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. under heading 69.03 CTA, rejecting their claim for assessment under heading 69.01/02 CTA with Notification No. 242/76-Cus. The appeal was dismissed. (Case: 1987 (6) TMI 316 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI)
-
1987 (6) TMI 315
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the assessment of stopper heads under heading 69.03 CTA, rejecting the appellant's claim for assessment under heading 69.01/02 CTA with Notification No. 242/76-Cus. The Tribunal found that stopper heads did not qualify as refractory bricks or similar goods under the notification. The appeal was dismissed.
-
1987 (6) TMI 314
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the assessment of stopper heads under heading 69.03 CTA, rejecting the appellant's claim for refund under heading 69.01/02 CTA with Notification No. 242/76-Cus. The Tribunal ruled that stopper heads do not qualify as refractory bricks or constructional goods, therefore dismissing the appeal. (1987 (6) TMI 314 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI)
-
1987 (6) TMI 313
Issues: Classification of imported parts of heat exchanger under Customs Tariff Act, 1975
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the issue revolved around the classification of imported parts of a heat exchanger under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Appellate Collector had dismissed the appellants' claim for assessment of the imported parts under Heading No. 84.17 and upheld the classification under Heading No. 68.01/16. The reason given was that the goods, though parts of a heat exchanger, were excluded from Chapter 84 as they were considered articles of carbon falling within Chapter 68.
The first key argument presented by the appellants was based on a previous decision by the Tribunal in Sawrashtra Chemicals v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, where it was held that carbon rings, as parts of machinery, should be classified under Heading No. 84.65 and not under Heading No. 68.01/16. The appellants relied on this decision to support their classification claim.
However, a subsequent decision by a Five-Member Bench of the Tribunal in Sawrashtra Chemicals, Porbandar v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, contradicted the earlier decision. In this case, it was ruled that even fully furnished machinery parts made of carbon would fall under Chapter 68 and not under Heading 84.65. This decision went against the appellants' argument.
The appellants further contended that since the subject goods were made of graphite, a form of carbon, and carbon was not specified in Chapter 68, the goods should be classified under Heading 84.65. They argued that carbon, being specified in Chapter 28, was not covered by Chapter 68. Additionally, they cited Note 2(b) to Section XVI, stating that parts should be classified under the same heading as the machinery of which they are parts.
The Tribunal, however, rejected the appellants' contentions, stating that the issue had already been addressed in the previous Five-Member Bench decision. It was clarified that Chapter 28 covered chemical elements, including carbon, and chemically defined compounds, not articles made of them. The Tribunal also emphasized that Note 2(b) to Section XVI was subject to Note 1 to Chapter 84, which had been fully considered in the previous decision, leading to the classification of machinery parts made of carbon under Chapter 68.
Additionally, a previous Tribunal order in the case of M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Udaipur, had classified graphite blocks imported for fitment as spares in heat exchangers under Heading 68.01/16, further supporting the classification of the goods in question under Chapter 68.
Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the goods under Heading 68.01/16, confirming the Appellate Collector's decision and dismissing the appeal made by the appellants.
-
1987 (6) TMI 300
Issues:
- Delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
- Communication of the order-in-original to the appellants.
- Authorization of the Custom House clearing agent to act on behalf of the appellants.
- Rejection of the appeal as time-barred by the Collector of Customs (Appeals).
Delay in Filing Appeal:
The appeal was filed before the Tribunal with a delay of 22 days, leading to the need for condonation of delay. The appellant, through an affidavit, claimed that the delay was due to illness. The Tribunal, after hearing the application for condonation of delay, decided to condone the delay and proceeded with the appeal hearing.
Communication of Order to Appellants:
The appellants argued that the order-in-original was not directly communicated to them by the Custom House, causing a delay in filing the appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals). They contended that the order should be deemed communicated to them from the date they received it from the Custom House. The respondent, however, asserted that communication to the Custom House clearing agent, authorized by the appellants, was sufficient under the Customs Act. The Tribunal found that the communication to the agent was valid as per the appellants' authorization, holding the appellants responsible for the agent's actions. Consequently, the appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was rightfully rejected as time-barred.
Authorization of Custom House Clearing Agent:
The appellants had authorized M/s. Sheikh and Pandit to act as their customs claim settling agent, including receiving and replying to correspondence on their behalf. The letter of authorization explicitly stated that the agent was authorized to receive refund orders. The Tribunal noted that the Custom House's communication of the order-in-original to the authorized agent was in compliance with the appellants' instructions. As the agent received the order, the responsibility for informing the appellants rested with them, as per the authorization letter.
Rejection of Appeal as Time-Barred:
Based on the authorization given to the clearing agent and the communication of the order to the agent, the Tribunal upheld the Collector of Customs (Appeals)' decision to reject the appeal as time-barred. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Collector's decision, as it was in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Collector's order.
-
1987 (6) TMI 299
The appeal involved eligibility of imported goods for concessional assessment under Notification No. 284/76-Cus. The goods were radar spares, supported by certificate and declaration. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, extending the concession to the imported goods. (Case: 1987 (6) TMI 299 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI)
-
1987 (6) TMI 298
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled against the CCE Bombay's appeal regarding pontoons being classified as ocean-going vessels for tax exemption. The Collector Appeals' decision to extend the exemption was deemed incorrect as pontoons are not designed for ocean travel. The exemption for pontoons was denied based on their limited use as ferry boats or temporary supports. The Tribunal's decision was supported by a reference to a Supreme Court case. The appeal was allowed, confirming that pontoons do not qualify as ocean-going vessels.
-
1987 (6) TMI 297
Issues: Lack of authorization by the Collector to file an appeal, Competency of cross-objection, Procedural lacuna in filing the appeal, Validity of subsequent authorization, Compliance with statutory requirements for appeal filing.
In this case, the Deputy Collector (I) of Central Excise, Calcutta filed an appeal against an order-in-Appeal without the required authorization by the Collector, as mandated by Section 35B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The respondents raised objections to the maintainability of the appeal due to the absence of the Collector's authorization. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the respondents, having succeeded in their appeal before the Appellate Collector, had no grounds to file a cross-objection to the Collector's appeal, rendering it incompetent and dismissed. However, the objection regarding the lack of authorization by the Collector remained to be addressed. The Deputy Collector later produced an authorization post-dated by several months, which was argued to ratify the filing of the appeal. The Tribunal scrutinized the Collector's file and determined that the lack of contemporaneous formal authorization from the Collector was a procedural lacuna that could not be overlooked. The Tribunal emphasized that the statutory requirement for authorization by the Collector before filing an appeal was not met, rendering the appeal filed without authority as incompetent. The subsequent authorization by a successor Collector after a significant lapse of time was deemed insufficient to rectify the initial defect. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to the failure to comply with the statutory requirement for authorization by the Collector.
This judgment delves into the essential requirement of authorization by the Collector before filing an appeal under Section 35B(2) of the Act. It highlights the significance of adhering to statutory procedures and the hierarchy within the excise department for appeal filings. The Tribunal emphasized that the lack of authorization from the Collector at the time of filing the appeal rendered it incompetent, regardless of any subsequent authorizations produced. The judgment underscores the importance of procedural compliance and timely adherence to statutory requirements for maintaining the validity of appeals before the Tribunal.
-
1987 (6) TMI 296
Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975; Condonation of delay in filing supplementary appeal; Dispute regarding basic customs duty and countervailing duty.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Initially, an application for condonation of delay in filing a supplementary appeal was considered and allowed by the Tribunal. The main issue revolved around the classification of connecting rod forgings of aluminum imported by the appellants, who were manufacturers of motorcycles. The department had assessed the goods under Heading 84.06 for Internal Combustion Piston Engines and Heading No. 87.09/12(1) for motor-cycles and parts thereof. The department argued that the goods had already attained the essential character of finished parts of motor-cycle engines, thus should be classified accordingly. However, the appellants contended that the goods had not reached the essential character of finished parts as they required further manufacturing operations. They sought re-assessment under Heading 76.08/16 as articles of aluminum. The Tribunal considered the samples of the imported goods and those after post-importation operations, concluding that the goods were only rough forgings and had not attained the proximate shape of finished connecting rods.
The department relied on a larger Bench judgment in BHEL's case regarding interpretative Rule 2(a) of the Customs Tariff Act, arguing that the goods had acquired the proximate shape of finished connecting rods and should be classified as such. However, the Tribunal found that each case must be decided based on its own facts and determined that the imported forgings were only rough forgings of aluminum. The Tribunal distinguished the case of Sri Rama Vilas Service Limited, emphasizing that the appellants had declared the goods as aluminum forgings for connecting rods, not as components or connecting rods. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the appellants' classification under Heading 76.08/16 for basic customs duty.
Regarding countervailing duty, a dispute arose in four appeals concerning the classification under Item No. 27(b) of the Central Excise Tariff for "shapes and sections" of aluminum. The appellants argued that the goods could not be considered as shapes and sections, but acknowledged the earlier Tribunal's order against them. The Tribunal agreed that the countervailing duty was correctly charged on the imported forgings, which had been shaped through die-forgings. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed concerning basic customs duty, but rejected regarding countervailing duty.
-
1987 (6) TMI 295
The case involved a refund claim by M/s. R.S. Rekhchand Mohota Spg. & Wvg. Mills Pvt. Ltd. for yarn duty paid by mistake. The claim was rejected by lower authorities citing time limitations. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that the claim was presented on time according to Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. The order of the lower authorities was set aside, and the refund was directed to be granted. (Case Citation: 1987 (6) TMI 295 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI)
-
1987 (6) TMI 294
Issues:
- Appeal against order demanding repayment of duty set off availed by respondents.
- Procedural lapses cited by departmental authorities.
- Lower appellate authority setting aside Assistant Collector's order.
- Interpretation of Notification No. 178/77 and subsequent conditions.
- Validity of maintaining prescribed registers and following procedures.
- Applicability of exemption notifications despite procedural deviations.
- Legal precedent supporting substantive benefit over procedural lapses.
Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise against an order demanding the repayment of duty set off availed by the respondents. The grounds for demanding back the set off included procedural lapses cited by the departmental authorities. These lapses included not maintaining prescribed registers, failing to send intimation about raw material inputs, and availing set off without receiving necessary duty payment documents.
2. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand against the respondents, but the lower appellate authority set aside this order. The lower appellate authority observed that the department had not initially prescribed a specific method to follow before availing the benefits under Notification No. 178/77. The authority emphasized that a manufacturer's substantive right should not be affected by procedural or technical lapses if they can prove duty payment on inputs used in manufacturing finished goods.
3. The appellant-Collector reiterated the same grounds in the appeal memorandum, while the learned SDR for the Revenue supported the grounds of appeal set out by the appellant-Collector. On the other hand, the advocate for the respondents argued that the lower appellate authority's decision was correct in law. The advocate stressed that procedural deviations should not hinder the substantive benefit granted by exemption notifications.
4. The advocate for the respondents highlighted that maintaining prescribed registers as per a trade notice was not feasible due to industry-specific difficulties. The advocate argued that a substantive benefit should not be denied due to procedural deviations, citing legal precedents like the Chemiequip Ltd. case and Electronics Limited v. Union of India case. The advocate emphasized that procedural compliance should be seen as directory rather than mandatory.
5. The Tribunal, after considering arguments from both sides, upheld the lower appellate authority's decision. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural deviations should not obstruct the availing of substantive benefits under exemption notifications. Legal precedents, including judgments in cases like Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Collector of Central Excise and Sunderam Fastners Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, supported this stance. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the procedural deviations should not bar the respondents from availing the benefits of the notifications.
6. In conclusion, the Tribunal found no fault with the lower appellate authority's decision and dismissed the appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of substantive benefit over procedural lapses when it comes to availing exemptions granted under notifications. The decision underscored that procedural compliance should be seen as a means to further justice rather than impede it.
-
1987 (6) TMI 293
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal.
2. Applicability of Rule 22 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
3. Merits of the case regarding the dismissal of the appeal by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) on the ground of limitation.
Condonation of Delay:
The appellant, Simplex Electronics, filed an appeal beyond the stipulated period provided under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The delay was condoned by the Appellate Tribunal as it was satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. Both the appellant's advocate and the JDR for the respondent did not oppose the condonation of delay.
Applicability of Rule 22:
The appellant filed two miscellaneous applications under Rule 22 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982. However, it was argued that Rule 22 was not applicable in this case due to changes in the partnership structure of Simplex Electronics. The JDR for the respondent agreed that Rule 22 was not applicable, leaving the decision to the Tribunal.
Merits of the Case:
The appellant contended that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation without granting a personal hearing. The appellant argued that the appeal was dispatched before the expiry of the limitation period and cited judgments from the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court to support their case. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, considering the judgments cited and the timely dispatch of the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, remanded the matters to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) with directions to grant a personal hearing to the appellants, and consider the takeover of assets and liabilities by M/s. Starvox Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd. The appeals were allowed by way of remand.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals, considering the delay condoned, the non-applicability of Rule 22, and the merits of the case regarding the dismissal of the appeal by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of granting a personal hearing and directed a reconsideration of the matter in accordance with the law.
-
1987 (6) TMI 292
The appellants filed a fresh appeal to replace an earlier defective appeal, which was dismissed. They need to pay a fee of Rs. 200 for the new appeal. The delay in filing the fresh appeal was condoned. The Department left the matter of out-of-turn hearing to the Bench's discretion, which granted early hearing on 10-8-1987.
-
1987 (6) TMI 291
Issues:
1. Whether compounded excise duty on cotton yarn payable at the time of clearance of fabrics forms part of the assessable value of the fabrics.
2. Whether duty on yarn should be excluded from the assessable value of fabrics under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act.
3. Whether proceedings initiated under Central Excise Rule 10, which was omitted, could be continued.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The primary issue in this appeal was whether the compounded excise duty on cotton yarn, paid at the time of clearance of fabrics, should be included in the assessable value of the fabrics. The appellant argued that the compounded duty was essentially duty on the fabrics and not on the yarn itself. However, the Collector (Appeals) held that the deferred duty on yarn was still duty on yarn, not on fabrics. The duty on fabrics alone had to be excluded from the assessable value, as per Sec. 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act. The Collector also limited the enforceability of the demand to one year from the date of the show cause notice, barring the demand for the period prior to that one-year period.
Issue 2:
Regarding the exclusion of duty from the assessable value of fabrics under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), the appellant contended that all excise duties payable on the goods should be excluded, including the compounded duty on yarn paid at the time of fabric clearance. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that only the duty on the fabric itself needed to be deducted from the normal price of the fabric. The deferred duty on yarn was still considered duty on yarn, not on the fabric, and therefore should not be excluded from the assessable value.
Issue 3:
The appellant further argued that proceedings initiated under the omitted Central Excise Rule 10 could not be continued after its omission. However, citing a previous judgment and the legal principle that proceedings initiated under a validly subsisting rule could continue despite its repeal or substitution, the Tribunal rejected this argument. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision that the compounded excise duty on cotton yarn paid at the time of fabric clearance should not be included in the assessable value of the fabrics. The exclusion of duty from the assessable value was limited to the duty on the fabric itself, as per the relevant provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Additionally, the Tribunal confirmed that proceedings initiated under an omitted rule could still be continued if validly initiated.
-
1987 (6) TMI 290
Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Heading 82.06 CTA vs. Heading 73.33/40 CTA.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Classification of imported goods
The Appellants imported goods described as "machine knives-semi-finished cold rolled, cold drawn carbon steel strip in carburised form" for the manufacture of blades/knives for leather machinery. They sought classification under Heading 82.06 CTA but were assessed under Heading 73.33/40 CTA. The Appellate Collector rejected the claim for assessment under Heading 73.15(1) CTA and confirmed the assessment by the Asstt. Collector, leading to the present appeal.
Analysis:
The Appellants argued that the imported goods acquired essential characteristics of knives and blades for industrial use, citing detailed operations carried out on the goods. They contended that interpretative Rule 2(a) should be applied for classification under Heading 82.06 CTA. The Ld. J.D.R. opposed this, stating that the goods were merely semi-finished steel strips and did not acquire the characteristics of knives/blades. The Tribunal examined the description in the invoice and bill of entry, concluding that the goods were still in a raw material form and far from being knives or blades for industrial use. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the goods did not meet the criteria for classification under Heading 82.06 CTA.
Key Points:
- Dispute over classification under different Customs Tariff Act headings.
- Appellants' argument based on the essential characteristics of the imported goods.
- Opposing view that the goods remained in a raw material form.
- Tribunal's decision based on the description in the invoice and bill of entry.
- Dismissal of the appeal due to lack of evidence supporting classification under Heading 82.06 CTA.
Significant Phrases:
- Interpretative Rule 2(a) application for classification.
- Essential characteristics of industrial knives.
- Description in the invoice and bill of entry.
- Semi-finished steel strips vs. knives/blades.
- Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal.
-
1987 (6) TMI 289
Issues:
1. Dispute over a memory card brought by a passenger, claimed to be a part of a photo-composing machine.
2. Confiscation of the memory card by customs under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Allegations of a small technical breach by the appellant and the department's contention that a new part was brought back.
4. Argument regarding the memory card being assessed as part of printing machinery.
5. Appeal rejection by the Tribunal.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal centered around a memory card brought by a passenger, initially cleared by customs based on an export certificate. However, upon re-examination, it was found that the part brought back was not the same as the one taken out. This led to the confiscation of the part under the Customs Act, imposition of fines, and duty recovery.
2. The appellant's counsel argued that the penalty imposed was disproportionate to the minor technical breach committed. They emphasized that there was no intention to evade the law, and the passenger's bona fides were evident as there was no concealment or misdeclaration.
3. The department contended that the imported part was not the original one taken out, constituting a violation of the law. They highlighted that the passenger had brought a new part back, rendering the export certificate invalid for the new circuit board.
4. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim of the memory card being part of printing machinery, affirming that it was solely a memory card and not a component of a machine. The classification of the card was deemed appropriate by the Tribunal.
5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision to confiscate the memory card and impose penalties. The Tribunal emphasized the deceptive actions of the passenger in presenting the new board as the original one, condemning the attempt to evade duty through fraudulent means.
This detailed analysis encapsulates the key arguments, findings, and the final decision of the Appellate Tribunal regarding the dispute over the memory card brought by the passenger.
-
1987 (6) TMI 288
Issues:
Classification of "Hand Operated Knitting Machines with Punch Cards -Model 840" under Heading 84.37(2) CTA by Custom House vs. appellants' claim for assessment under Heading 84.37(1) CTA.
Detailed Analysis:
The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the imported knitting machines were domestic machines or not. The appellants contended that the imported goods were not domestic machines. Reference was made to a previous judgment, but the Tribunal emphasized the need to focus on the facts of the present case rather than relying solely on past decisions involving different models of knitting machines. The classification hinged on whether the imported goods were suitable for domestic use.
Both sides presented arguments regarding the nature of the imported knitting machines. The appellants argued that the machines were designed for industrial use due to their complexity and capabilities, which included tasks relevant for large-scale production. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the machines could also be used domestically for sophisticated knitting tasks, citing examples of pattern knitting. The respondent relied on a judgment to support the assertion that even if industrial units used a machine, it could still be considered domestic.
The appellants highlighted the machine's ability to use various types of yarn and its higher cost compared to domestic machines. They emphasized that the machine's features and applications were more suited for industrial purposes rather than household use. The respondent countered by stating that the machine's capabilities, including pattern knitting, could be useful in households, especially for middle-class families.
The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and examined evidence provided by the appellants, including a letter stating the industrial use of the machines in a factory and a person using the machine in a household. Despite the evidence, the Appellate Collector dismissed the appeal, concluding that the imported goods were domestic knitting machines based on the catalogue description and weight comparison.
The Tribunal addressed the Interpretative Rule 3, emphasizing the need for goods to be classifiable under both headings for the rule to apply. The relevant headings in question were 84.37(1) and 84.37(2), distinguishing between domestic and non-domestic knitting machines. The Tribunal analyzed the capabilities and features of the imported machine, concluding that it was more suited for industrial use based on its complexity, capacity, and price, thereby allowing the appeal and ordering classification under Heading 84.37(1) CTA.
-
1987 (6) TMI 287
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal of the appellants seeking complete exemption for 'pulse generator' imported by them under Exemption Notification No. 206/76-Customs. The department did not oppose the claim after considering the certificate and explanation provided by the appellants. (Citation: 1987 (6) TMI 287 - CEGAT, New Delhi)
-
1987 (6) TMI 286
The appeal involved the classification of "magnetic medium" in a Bill of Entry. The imported goods were claimed to be magnetic powder, specifically covered under Heading 73.03/05 of CTA. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the imported goods fell under Heading 73.03/05 as they were described as magnetic medium and not component parts.
........
|
9911796707
