TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o in similar other industrial processes. For this finding of fact reliance was placed on the affidavits of Shri Ram Mohan Rai and Shri Waldemar Lange where it was stated that PPLF was used as Liner component of tyre manufacturing machines and in similar other industrial uses. Thus ultimately held that PPLF imported by the appellant could not be treated as component of the machinery installed by the petitioner. Appeal dismissed. - 1845-51 of 1981 - - - Dated:- 26-8-1997 - Suhas C. Sen and K.T. Thomas, JJ. [Order per : Suhas C. Sen, J.]. - Modi Rubber Limited, the appellant herein, set up a tyre and tube manufacturing plant in 1974. It had a collaboration agreement with a West German Company (hereinafter referred to as "foreign coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and applied to the Director General, Trade and Development, for inclusion of PPLF in another import licence for Raw Material which was duly allowed. 3.The grievance of the appellant is that the Customs Department has levied duty at the rate of nearly 305 per cent under Item 53 ICT. The only reason for classifying the goods imported by the appellant under Item 53 ICT was that PPLF had been imported under a separate and subsequent licence and not under the Project Import licence. The appellant is aggrieved by the levy of duty under Item 53 ICT on PPLF imported by it. The contention of the appellant is that in the facts of this case, duty should have been levied under Item 72(3) ICT as component part of the machinery imported by it and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver not a raw material which goes into the finished product, namely, tyres and tubes". 5.The Government was of the view that ordinarily "component part" should go into the assembly of a machinery itself. The Government of India, thereafter, had elaborately discussed the functions of PPLF and came to the conclusion that it was more properly in the nature of an accessory to the equipment. It was further noticed that proforma invoice and the list of machineries supplied, forwarded by the appellant to DGTD and CCI and E did not indicate that the Liner Fabric was a `component'. It was also noted that the fabric imported by the appellant was in running lengths of different sizes and width. In the form in which they were imported, these fabrics ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
