TMI Blog1985 (3) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imported by the party was a multiple-purpose one and was not exclusively used for grinding of hobs, so as to be treated as a hob-grinder within the meaning of the Entry Serial No. 24 of Appendix I, Part B of AM Policy for 1984-85, nor a hob-cutting or sharpening machine, as covered by Serial No. 22 of the Customs Notification, on which the party placed reliance. It was, thus, conveyed to the party that the machine, being a capital equipment not covered by Appendix I, would require a specific Licence for its importation, and that full customs duty, with reference to the relevant Tariff Entry, would be payable. 2. The party repudiated this position by means of reply to this show cause dated 20-8-1984, by urging that the machine was basically a hob-cutter/grinder and that the mere fact that it could, in addition, according to die manufacturers catalogue, perform other functions, would not take it from the category of a hob-grinder and, further, that they had industrial licence only for manufacture of hobs and the machine imported by them was intended to be used exclusively for hob-cutting and, as such, had to be treated as a hob-grinder so far as their importation was concerned. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it could also be used for grinding of angular cutters, tread mills, taps, etc., they contend that it would be indeed a waste of highly expensive machine to manufacture such ordinary tools, and that the predominant use of the imported machine remains that of hob cutting/grinding and that the Additional Collector failed to appreciate this fact of predominant function of the machine. The appellants further contend that the Additional Collector has erred in treating it to be a versatile machine, capable of several uses. They placed reliance on a certificate issued by the Director General of Technical Development (DGTD) after the Customs Department had taken adverse view, and over that according to certificate, issued by the office of the DGTD, dated 16-10-1984 (which they have appended as Exhibit-K), it has been certified that this machine would be covered by Serial No. 24 of Appendix I, Part B of Import Policy, Vol. I for AM 1984-85. The appellants contend that this letter of the DGTD was a conclusive proof of the fact that the imported machine was essentially a hob-grinder, as claimed by the appellants, and is, therefore, eligible not only for being passed under OGL but also for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DGTD categorically certifying that this machine, described as Koepfer Relief Grinding Machine Type 230-S , will be covered by Serial No. 24 of Appendix-I, Part B of Import Policy, Vol. I for AM 1984-85, and took us through the letter issued on 16-10-1984, bearing the date 15-10-1984, under signatures of Industrial Adviser in the office of the DGTD. He argued, placing reliance on a CEGAT decision quoted in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 103 (Tribunal = 1984 ECR 2204 (M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd v. Collector of Bombay), that the certificate of the DGTD was enough to prove party s claim for benefit of Customs Notification for concessional rate of duty. He, therefore, contended that, on the same principles, the DGTD certificate in this case should also be treated as conclusive evidence of the fact that the imported machine was a hob-cutting/sharpening machine, as required by Customs Notification 40/78, and also a hob-grinder within the contemplation of AM policy. 8. Shri K.V. Kunhikrishnan, DR, appearing for the respondent, countered these arguments by highlighting the description of the machine in the catalogue, which the appellants themselves have supplied, and contended that the concessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had incorporated that on production of End Use affidavit and DGTD Certificate, the requiement for purpose of concessional rate of duty under that Notification would be deemed to have been satisfied. As against that Notification No. 40/78, under which the appellants are now claiming benefit in this case, does not make any such reference to the DGTD certificate, and is based on plain description of the machine itself. We, therefore, do not think that the appellants can urge, on the basis of the said judgment of the Tribunal, that DGTD certificate in all cases should be accepted as a conclusive circumstance. 11. For the same reason, we do not think that any letter, issued by the Customs authorities as is now put forward, can be determinative of the matter because the adjudicating authorities are entitled to give an independent finding on the basis of material placed before them. Shri Habbu has rightly conceded that this letter, issued by the Customs authorities, was not being pleaded as an estoppel, against the Customs Department nor does the other instance of 1982-importation (Exhibit-H collectively), cited by the appellants, lend any assistance to the apellants cause because th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
