Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Escorts Limited vs Collector Of Customs on 21 November, 1989
Equivalent citations: 1990(25)ECC206, 1990ECR104(TRI.-DELHI), 1990(47)ELT68(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The issue for decision in this appeal is the eligibility of the appellant for the benefit of Notification No. 243/78-Cus., dated 26-12-1978, which grants concessional rate of duty to the goods specified therein, falling under Chapter 90 of the Customs Tariff Act which are designed for testing purposes in the automotive industry.
2. The appellant imported noise and vibration measuring and analysing equipment consisting of instrumentation tape recorder type 7005 F, Power supply type 2G 0199, tape spools type QH1003, Charge amplifier type 2635, accelerometer type 4371S and other accessories. As per the catalogue submitted for portable instrumentation tape-recorder types 7005 and 7006, the goods are for recording of vibration and sound data, etc. covering a frequency range from DC to 60KHZ. The appellants' claim for the benefit of Notification No. 243/78 was rejected by the Deputy Collector on the ground that the equipment imported is for general purposes including use in automotive industries and cannot be said to be designed for use in automotive industries. The Collector (Appeals) confirmed the Deputy Collector's Order, holding that the imported goods have been constructed for achieving more purposes than merely serving the testing purposes in automobile industry and cannot, therefore, be said to have been "designed" for testing purposes of the automobile industry. The order of the Collector (Appeals) is challenged before us.
3. We have heard Shri P.S. Bedi, learned Consultant for the appellant and Shri C.V. Durghayya, learned DR for the Department.
4. The appellant has claimed the benefit of Notification No. 243/78 as, according to the appellant, the goods are designed for testing purposes in the automotive industry.
5. The catalogue produced both before the lower authorities and before us, shows that the testing equipment has various alternate application such as architectural accoustices where the accoustical response of rooms, halls, auditoriums and lecture theatres may be recorded for laboratory investigations. The Deputy Collector has held that the goods have been imported for use in the automotive industry, namely, recording of electronic signal from noise and vibration pick up with the objective of noise and vibration analysis on automotive products such as tractors, loaders, etc. and recording of experimental data in the field for laboratory analysis. However, having held that the goods have been imported for use in the automotive industry, he has disallowed the benefit of Notification No. 243/78 to the appellant since the equipment imported is also for general purposes.
6. The Collector (Appeals) has also held that there is no dispute about the equipment being noise and vibration measuring and analysing equipment and that it is only the versatality of its application for measurement and analysis in multifarous industries that has raised the question as to its eligibility for the exemption.
7. A perusal of Notification No. 243/78 shows that there is no condition imposed that the equipment imported must be designed "exclusively" or "entirely" for testing purposes in the automotive industry. The Collector (Appeals) has erred in holding that, because the equipment is a multipurpose one, it cannot be said to have been designed for testing purposes of the automobile industry.
8. The citations relied upon by the learned Consultant are squarely applicable to this case. In the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Living Media (Order No. 34/89 B.2 dated 31-3-1989), the Tribunal had occasion to deal with the eligibility of the assessee for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 11/77 Cus., dated 15-1-1977 in the case of import of film/paper processor. Relying upon the decision in 1983 E.L.T. 1103 (Andhra Patrika, Madras v. CC, Madras), wherein it was held that "if, in addition to film processing the machine can perform other function of paper processing as well, exemption cannot be denied", the Tribunal granted the benefit of the notification to the assessee. In the case of T.I. Diamond Chain Ltd., Madras v. CC, Madras (Order No. 278/89-B.2 dated 18-8-1989), the Tribunal has held that merely because a machinery (Vickers Hardness Tester) could perform other functions, benefit of the exemption cannot be denied.
9. The ratio of the above cited cases fully covers this appeal. The benefit of Notification No. 243/78-Cus., dated 26-12-1978 cannot be denied to the appellant merely because the equipment imported, in addition to its use for testing purposes in the automotive industry, is also used for general purposes.
10. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the appellant is eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 243/78-Cus., dated 26-12-1978, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief.