Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Eacom'S Controls (India) Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 17 October, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(97)ELT83(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Eacom's Controls (India) Ltd., the matter relates to the eligibility of the goods imported - Housing and Covers for the transmitters, positioners, recorders, indicators, etc. to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 69/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986 as amended. The goods had been imported under B/E dated 4-7-1986 and the goods were cleared without the benefit of this exemption Notification. Subsequently, a refund claim was filed on the ground that the benefit of Notification No. 69/86-Cus. should be made available to the goods imported. The item "Housing" was a component of pneumatic transmitters and these transmitters were instruments used for measuring or checking the flow, level, pressure or other variables of liquids or gases. The "housing" was a carbon steel casting especially designed to house the internal parts of the transmitters. The 'covers' were declared to be the component of pneumatic positioners and that the positioners were for automatic regulating on controlling instruments. The refund claim was rejected by the Asstt. Collector of Customs on the ground that the goods could not be treated as apparatus and they have been correctly classified under sub-heading No. 9026.90. On appeal, the Collector, Customs (Appeals) observed that the relevant entries in the exemption Notification related only to the accessories while the goods imported were parts and not accessories. He rejected the appeal and disposed of the matter accordingly.
2. We have heard Shri Vivek Kohli, Advocate for the appellants and Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR. We have gone through relevant exemption Notification.
3. Under exemption Notification No. 69/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986, concessional rates of customs duty were prescribed for different goods falling under specified headings/sub-headings of the Customs Tariff. Against Serial No. 3 of the Table annexed to that Notification are covered :
"All parts and accessories other than parts and accessories containing thermionic valves or transistors or similar semi-conductor devices or light emitting diodes or electronic micro-circuits."
Against Serial No. 12 of the Table aforesaid, the following goods were covered:
"(a) Accessories of instruments and humidistars other than those containing thermionic valves or transistors or similar semi-conductor devices or light emitting diodes or electronic micro-circuits.
(b) Accessories other than those of thermostats and humidistars and not containing thermionic valves or transistors or similar semi-conductor devices or light emitting diodes or electronic micro-circuits."
4. There is no dispute that the goods were covered by sub-heading No. 9026.90. It has been referred to by the Asstt. Collector of Customs in his order. The appellants had claimed before the Collector, Customs (Appeals) that the 'housing and covers' were covered under sub-heading Nos. 9026.90 and 9032.90 respectively. It has not been disputed by the Collector, Customs (Appeals). He had rejected the appeal on the ground that the Notification No. 69/86-Cus. as aforesaid provided a concessional rate of customs duty in respect of the accessories only and in his view, the parts were not covered by the said notification.
5. The relevant Serial Numbers 3 and 12 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 69/86-Cus. had already been extracted above. It is seen that both parts and accessories were covered by the relevant entries in the Notification. In view of the clear inclusion of parts and accessories both in sub-heading No. 9026.90 (Serial No. 3) and sub-heading No. 9032.90 (Serial No. 12), we consider that the ld. Collector, Customs (Appeals) had not taken a correct view inasmuch as the parts are specifically covered for the benefit of the said Notification.
6. Without going into the other aspects of the matter, we do not agree with the view of the ld. Collector (Appeals) that the parts were not covered by the relevant entries under Notification No. 69/86-Cus.
7. Taking all the relevant consideration into account, we set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal. As a result, the appeal is allowed.
8. The refund, if any, will however, be, subject to the law of unjust enrichment as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. -1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) read with 1997 (90) E.L.T. 260 (S.C.).
9. With above observations, the appeal is allowed.