9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Heading 9002.11, refund claim under Heading 98.06, applicability of Notification No. 69/87, interpretation of whether lens is considered an article of glass. Analysis: The case involved the classification of imported KAWA Brand Cinematographic Projector Lens under Heading 9002.11, with the appellants seeking reclassification under Heading 98.06 and claiming benefits under Notification No. 69/87 and No. 96/86. The Assistant Collector initially assessed the goods under Heading 9002.11 and rejected the refund claim as the Notification did not cover this Tariff Item. The Collector (Appeals) accepted the classification under Heading 98.06 but denied the benefit of Notification No. 69/87, citing that lenses, being articles of glass, were excluded from the Notification. The appeals were filed against the Collector's order dated 12-9-1989. During the hearing, the Learned Consultant for the appellants and the Learned DR for the Revenue presented their arguments. The main issue was whether the benefit of Notification No. 69/87 was available for the goods classified under Heading 98.06. The Collector acknowledged that the goods were parts of projectors but considered the mounted lens as articles of glass, referencing a Supreme Court judgment highlighting the distinction between glass and glassware based on functional identification by users. The Tribunal found that the mental association of a person ordering a lens would be with a projector, not with glass. The Collector's interpretation of the mounted projector lens as an article made of glass was deemed erroneous. The Tribunal disagreed with this classification and held that the benefit of the Notification was available at the material time. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the Collector's orders were set aside, and consequential relief was directed, if any.
|
