National Sales Corporation Vs. The Collector of Customs, Madras.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos.3690-93 of 1988
Petitioner: National Sales Corporation
Respondent: The Collector of Customs, Madras.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos.3690-93 of 1988
Judges: R.M. SAHAI & S.C. SEN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 09, 1995
Head Note:
EXCISE
Central Excise Tariff Act:
Tariff Item 34A – Whether bimetal bearings of Glyco make for earth moving machinery imported by the assessee could be treated as thin walled bearings and taxed to additional duty under TI 34A or assessable under TI 68 – Held following Kirloskar Oil Engines that in absence of any material I.S. specification cannot be ignored – As no finding recorded about imported bimetal bearing to be treated as thin walled bearings, Tribunal directed to decide afresh.
Held:
None of the authorities have recorded any finding that the bimetal bearing imported by the appellant satisfied the specification of IS:4774 of the Indian Standard. The Customs Authorities and even the Tribunal instead of relying on any material as provided assumed that bimetal bearings are understood in the trade circle as thin walled bearings. In C.A. No.225 of 1991 (Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. v.Union of India & Ors.) decided today, it has been held that in absence of any material, IS specification cannot be ignored. The matter has been remitted to the High Court for decision afresh. Therefore, it is expedient to direct the Tribunal to decide these appeals of the appellant afresh. (Para 2)
Cases Reffered:
1. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., JT 1995 (4) SC (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
R.M. SAHAI, J. :
1. The appellant imported bimetal bearings of Glyco make for earth moving machinery from West Germany. The Collector of Customs treating the goods to be motor vehicle parts and in particular as thin walled bearings subjected them to levy of additional duty at the rate of 20% plus 5% ad valorem under Item 34-A of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant removed the goods under Bills of Entry and paid the duty as assessed but claimed that such assessment was erroneous under Tariff Item 34-A as the goods in question did not answer the description of ‘Thin Walled Bearings’. The appellant claimed that on the bimetal bearings imported by it duty should have been charged at 8% ad valorem under residuary Item 68 and consequently it was entitled to refund. The Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund) rejected the claim and held that the Trade Notice No.34/79 of the Central Excise Collectorate giving out the relevant dimensions as laid down in ISI Specification No.4774-1968 for deciding whether the bimetal bearings were thin walled bearings was not binding on the Department. Same view was taken by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). In further appeal the Tribunal held that the goods imported by the appellant were to be used in motor cars and other combustion engines. It found that the bimetal bearings known in the trade as such could be called thin walled bearings otherwise it would be going beyond the very definition of such bearings. It, therefore, held that the bearings imported by the appellant were thin walled bearings.
2. None of the authorities have recorded any finding that the bimetal bearing imported by the appellant satisfied the specification of IS:4774 of the Indian Standard. The Customs Authorities and even the Tribunal instead of relying on any material as provided assumed that bimetal bearings are understood in the trade circle as thin walled bearings. In C.A. No.225 of 1991 (Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. v.Union of India & Ors.) decided today, it has been held that in absence of any material, IS specification cannot be ignored. The matter has been remitted to the High Court for decision afresh. Therefore, it is expedient to direct the Tribunal to decide these appeals of the appellant afresh.
3. In the result these appeals succeed and are allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. It is directed to decide the claim of the appellant afresh on merits in accordance with law.
1. The appellant imported bimetal bearings of Glyco make for earth moving machinery from West Germany. The Collector of Customs treating the goods to be motor vehicle parts and in particular as thin walled bearings subjected them to levy of additional duty at the rate of 20% plus 5% ad valorem under Item 34-A of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant removed the goods under Bills of Entry and paid the duty as assessed but claimed that such assessment was erroneous under Tariff Item 34-A as the goods in question did not answer the description of ‘Thin Walled Bearings’. The appellant claimed that on the bimetal bearings imported by it duty should have been charged at 8% ad valorem under residuary Item 68 and consequently it was entitled to refund. The Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund) rejected the claim and held that the Trade Notice No.34/79 of the Central Excise Collectorate giving out the relevant dimensions as laid down in ISI Specification No.4774-1968 for deciding whether the bimetal bearings were thin walled bearings was not binding on the Department. Same view was taken by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). In further appeal the Tribunal held that the goods imported by the appellant were to be used in motor cars and other combustion engines. It found that the bimetal bearings known in the trade as such could be called thin walled bearings otherwise it would be going beyond the very definition of such bearings. It, therefore, held that the bearings imported by the appellant were thin walled bearings.
2. None of the authorities have recorded any finding that the bimetal bearing imported by the appellant satisfied the specification of IS:4774 of the Indian Standard. The Customs Authorities and even the Tribunal instead of relying on any material as provided assumed that bimetal bearings are understood in the trade circle as thin walled bearings. In C.A. No.225 of 1991 (Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. v.Union of India & Ors.) decided today, it has been held that in absence of any material, IS specification cannot be ignored. The matter has been remitted to the High Court for decision afresh. Therefore, it is expedient to direct the Tribunal to decide these appeals of the appellant afresh.
3. In the result these appeals succeed and are allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. It is directed to decide the claim of the appellant afresh on merits in accordance with law.
