TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondents. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. This appeal arises from order-in-appeal dated 9-6-1989 passed by Collector (Appeals), Bombay confirming the order-in-original denying the benefit of Notification No. 146/86 in respect of parts of ball bearing by applying Interpretative Rule 2(a) of the Customs Tariff. In this case the question of classification of the Item under sub- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em plus Rs. 17 per bearing (d) 0.633 or more but not more than 0.933 100% ad valorem plus Rs. 26 per bearing (ii) Others 15% ad valorem The notification exempts the goods specified in Column (2) of the table and which fall under Heading 84.82 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, when imported into India from so much o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this regard, he relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Guest Keen Williams Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta as reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 68. In this citation, the Tribunal has referred to number of judgments and it has been categorically laid down that it is an accepted position that notification should be interpreted on the basis of the language used therein and not on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Notes, Chapter Notes or even the interpretation Rules cannot be applied. The notification is required to be interpreted strictly. This view has also been recently reiterated by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Maruti Udyog Ltd., Sipani Automobilies Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bangalore as reported in 1996 (16) RLT 646. In this appeal, there is no dispute that the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
