Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (10) TMI 195

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er scooters. The lower authorities had assessed the goods to basic customs duty under Heading 84.06 (as part of internal combustion engine) and 87.09/12(1) (as part of scooter) respectively, with additional customs duty under Item 26AA of the Central Excise Tariff in some cases and under Item 68 thereof in others. In doing so, the lower authorities have held that by application of the Interpretative Rule 2 (a) of the Customs Tariff Act 1975, both the goods were deemed finished components. The appellants prayer is that the goods in both cases were only rough forgings, that Interpretative Rule 2 (a) was not applicable and that the basic customs duty should be assessed only under Heading 73.06/ 07(2) as rough forgings and the additional custo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... -1980 that the goods were unmachined rough forgings only and that, therefore, they were classifiable under Chapter 73 of the CTA. This order was not revised by the Central Government and hence it became final. The Department followed this order for about three years. The successor authorities, could, no doubt, change the classification prospectively but they could do so only for sound and cogent reasons vide 1983 E.L.T. 328 (Delhi) - J.K. Synthetics Limited. No such sound or cogent reasons had been brought on record. 4. The learned representative of the Department argued, with the help of the invoices and drawings placed on record by the appellants, that both the goods as imported satisfied each and every norm laid down by the Larger Benc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... had attained the approximate shape or outline of the finished article; (2) whether the said imported article can only be used for completion into the finished article and (3) these would have to be determined with reference to the nature of the material, its bulk, quantity, weight or value. This very enumeration would therefore establish that no general principles can be laid down as to how and in what circumstances Rule 2(a) could be pressed into service for assessment of the imported unfinished article. In each case the factors enumerated above would have to be taken into consideration individually, and then collectively, to determine whether the imported article had attained the approximate shape or outline of the finished article and co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he approximate shape and outline of the finished article. We find further that the imported goods were not general purpose blanks that could be further machined for being fitted in any one of the several machines that may require the complete article. On the contrary, the goods having been precisely shaped and forged to specific dimensions according to specified part drawings, they could be finished only into the Connecting rod and Cross, the two components which fitted the appellants vehicles. We find also that the goods were made of special steel - EN 353 and EN 28. In the circumstances, we agree with the learned Representative of the Department that the goods as imported satisfied all the norms laid down by the Larger Bench. The post-im .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... elied on by the appellant itself says that a different order on classification passed by a higher Court would constitute sufficient reason for changing the earlier classification. All the three impugned orders passed by the Collector (Appeals) took note of this Tribunal order, dated 25-1-1983. We hold, therefore, that there were good and cogent reasons for the lower authorities to change the classification held by the earlier Appellate Collector on 5-4-1980. 8. However, so far as the additional customs duty is concerned, we agree that for the reasons given by the learned representative of the Department, the additional customs duty could only be levied with reference to Item 26AA of the Central Excise Tariff. 9. In the light of our abov .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates