Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Vaz Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 30 June, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1989(43)ELT358(TRI-DEL)
ORDER I J. Rao, Member (T)
1. In this appeal, originally filed as Revision Application before the Central Government and transferred to the Tribunal as an appeal, the ques- tion relates to the eligibility of the goods imported by the appellants under Bill of Entry No. 1761 dated 30-3-80 to the concessional assessment under Notification No. 284/76- Cus. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the claim for extension of the conces- sion to the imported goods on the ground that imported goods were spare parts and not components and, therefore, did not qualify for the notification. The Collector of Cus- toms (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Collector for the same reasons.
2. We heard Shri A.K. Chatterjee and Shri Jag Mohan Lai. Shri Chatterjee ex- plained that as far as importers namely Meteorological Department are concerned, they do not distinguish between spare parts and components. He submitted that any part im- ported by the appellants could go in the original machine as a component. Further, ac- cording to the Ld. Representative, the imported goods were not in the nature of consumable goods but were parts of the equipment in which they went and were, there- fore, to be considered as components. Shri Chatterjee referred to a definition in the Laof Lexicon (T.P. Mukherjee) wherein "component part" was explained. He has also referred to two earlier orders of the Tribunal (Order Nos. 204 of 1983 dated 7.4.83 and No. 30 of 1983 dated 28.4.83) and argued that in these cases similar goods were treated as component parts.
3. Shri D.K. Saha, Ld. JDR, submitted that there is a basic difference between 'spare parts' and 'component parts'. According to him 'component parts' are those which go into the initial assembly or manufacture of the machine whereas 'spare parts' are those which replace the parts of the machine already assembled. Shri Saha agreed that the same part could, when used in the initial assembly, be called 'component' whereas when imported subsequently as a replacement would be called 'spare part'. Shri Saha also referred to Laof Lexicon (T.P. Mukherjee) wherein the term "spare parts" was defined and commented upon.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides. The two or- ders referred to by the appellants have been perused by us. In both the cases the notifica- tion No. 147/80, was involved. In both the cases essentiality certificate was produced before the Tribunal and the question before the Tribunal was limited as to whether the essentiality certificates produced covered the imported goods or not. There was an aver- ment by the importers (same as here) that the imported goods namely radar parts were components of radar. The Tribunal reviewed the specialised nature of the imported goods and held that the certificate produced by the appellants explained the character, function and purpose of the said item. In order No. 204 of 1983 it appears that the Department's Representative agreed that the imported goods were entitled to be as- sessed under concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 147/80. Thus in neither of the cases the question as to whether the imported goods were 'components' or 'spare- parts' was brought into focus though such an issue was involved there. In the absence of any detailed discussion on this point, we do not find in these orders anything to guide us.
5. We have no doubt in mind that the appellants imported the parts for use in the radar. Though we accept the statement in this regard, we have to go by the wording of the notification (No. 284 of 1976). This notification exempts wireless apparatus and component parts of such apparatus for customs duty. The word 'component part' used in the notification cannot be ignored. If it was the intention of the notification to exempt parts used for initial assembly as well as parts imported later for replacement, the notification should not have used the word "component" and should have really men- tioned "parts". We are inclined to agree with the submission of Shri Shah, JDR, that the same parts when initially used in the assembly or manufacture of the machine would be called "component parts" whereas the same parts imported for subsequent replacement of its part of initial assembly has to be considered as a "spare parts". The Laof Lexi- con (T.P. Mukherjee) cited by the appellants does not help the present situation as the question considered therein is not similar in nature.
6. In this view, we hold that the goods noimported by the appellants are ad: mittedly for replacement and not for initial assembly and have to be considered as "spare parts" and not "component parts". We, therefore, do not accept the arguments of the ap- pellants though they advanced the arguments after much study and were of great inter- est in examining this point.
7. We dismiss the appeal.