Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Executive Engineer (Civil) C.W. And ... vs Collector Of Customs on 17 January, 1983
Equivalent citations: 1983ECR193D(TRI.-DELHI), 1983(12)ELT407(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
1. In this case, the appellants' claim for refund in respect of (1) Chart Paper, (2) Pens and (3) Ink Cartridges, under Notification No. 211/76-Cus, was rejected by the lower authorities on the grounds that
(i) the subject goods were of consumable nature and,
(ii) Duty Exemption Certificate had not been produced.
2. The case was argued before us on 17-1-1983. Shri S.A. Tongaonkar, Research Assistant of the appellants, appeared for them. Shri M. Chatterjee appeared for the Department.
3. Shri Tongaonkar showed a sample of the Chart Paper and stated that this paper had been imported in rolls, that the Pens as well as Ink Cartridges were of special type which were attached to the Recorder and were in the nature of essential parts and accessories of the Recorder and that they were still in correspondence with the concerned Ministry for getting the Duty Exemption Certificate for which he requested for extension of time. He produced photostat copy of 'Section 1-General Information' from the catalogue which listed Chart Paper, Analog Pens, Event Marker Pens, and Ink Cartridges under the heading "Accessories" for Brush Mark 220 Recorder.
4. On behalf of the Department, Shri Chatterjee reiterated the same two grounds on which the lower authorities had rejected the appellants' refund claim.
5. We have carefully considered the matter. Exemption Notification No. 211/76-Cus,, specifically excludes consumable items from its coverage. We find that Chart Paper and Ink Cartridges are consumable items and, therefore, correctly denied the benefit of the notification. However, we find that the subject Pens do not come in the category of consumable items as they are used again and again till they are totally worn out or become otherwise defective in the course of working of the Recorder. They were, therefore, in the nature of parts and accessories of the Recorder which was a scientific and technical instrument and hence validly covered within the scope of the notification. As regards the second ground of rejection of the appellants' claim, we find from condition (ii) of the notification that production of Duty Exemption Certificate is not mandatory in every case and that the exemption could be allowed on production of the NMIC alone if the Collector of Customs was otherwise satisfied in each case that the goods in respect of which the exemption was claimed were scientific or technical instruments, apparatus or equipment or spare parts, component parts or accessories of such instruments, apparatus or equipments. Since we have already held that the subject Pens were parts and accessories of the Recorder, which in turn was a scientific and technical instrument, we do not consider that DEC should be insisted upon in terms of the notification.
6. Accordingly, we reject the appeal in respect of Chart Paper and Ink Cartridges but allow it, with consequential relief, in respect of Pens.