9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of rotors and stators u/s Tariff Item No. 30 or Tariff Item No. 51A. 2. Relevance of personal observations and pamphlets in classification. 3. Consideration of trade understanding and affidavits in classification. 4. Applicability of trade meaning versus statutory definition in classification. Summary: 1. Classification of Rotors and Stators: The petitioner, a company manufacturing electrically operated hand tools, classified rotors and stators as parts of electric motors under Tariff Item No. 30 for several years. In May 1978, the company claimed these should be classified under Tariff Item No. 51A as power tools. The Assistant Collector, Appellate Collector, and Central Government rejected this claim, maintaining the classification under Tariff Item No. 30. The company challenged these decisions u/s Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Relevance of Personal Observations and Pamphlets: The petitioner argued that the Assistant Collector erred by relying on personal observations made during a factory visit. The court held that while personal observations alone cannot determine classification, the Assistant Collector considered various circumstances, including test charts and pamphlets, which were relevant. The court found no error in considering pamphlets as one of the relevant circumstances for classification. 3. Consideration of Trade Understanding and Affidavits: The petitioner contended that the authorities ignored affidavits from dealers and experts, which indicated that the goods were not known as electric motors in trade. The court noted that these affidavits were produced at a late stage and were not before the Assistant Collector. The revisional authority was not bound to consider new evidence presented for the first time in revision. The court found the affidavits unconvincing and sponsored by the company, thus not reliable for determining classification. 4. Applicability of Trade Meaning versus Statutory Definition: The court emphasized that when the statutory definition is clear, trade meaning or commercial nomenclature should not be considered. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Akbar Badruddin Jiwani v. Collector of Customs, the court held that the words in Tariff Item No. 30 were clear and unambiguous. Therefore, the authorities were justified in ignoring trade understanding. The court concluded that the classification under Tariff Item No. 30 was correct and declined to exercise writ jurisdiction to disturb the concurrent findings of the authorities. Conclusion: The court discharged the rule with costs, affirming the classification of the disputed items under Tariff Item No. 30.
|
