Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
M/S. Cummins India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs, Acc. Mumbai on 23 March, 2001
ORDER JH Joglekar, Member (T)
1. The present appellants were a party to the order No.CC/PCJ/2 to 25/99/1371 dated 26.3.99 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai against which they have filed this appeal.
2. A number of other Corporations similarly placed as the present appellants had also filed appeals against the said order. The Tribunal had disposed of the bunch of appeals vide their order now reported in 2000(117)E.L.T. 241 (Tri) (Prena Textile Inds. Ltd. vs CC). This decision of the tribunal was appealed against in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court pronounced their judgement now reported in 2001(128)E.L.T.21 (S.C.) (Associated Cement Companies Ltd vs CC). M/s. Videocon Ltd. were also one of the appellants before the Supreme Court. Paragraph 65 to 80 relate to the submissions made by them. The Supreme Court while upholding the judgement of the Tribunal in this order had held that the drawings and designs were correctly classifiable under Heading No.49.06. It was held that at the material time the Tariff provided that the same were capable of being imported free of duty. Thus they were not dutiable articles and, therefor, no customs duty was leviable there on even when imported as part of the passenger baggage. On this ground the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by M/s. Videocon Ltd.
3. Shri Manoj Sanklecha, advocate for the appellants submits that the appellants' case in on par with that of M/s. Videocon Ltd. The date of import in their case was December, 1992. The date of import by M/s. Videocon Ltd was June, 1992. It is submitted that on both the dates, the goods falling under Heading No.49.06 did not attract any duty. Consequently, the appellants' appeal merits to be allowed. He showed us a private publication containing the Customs Tariff 1992-93 which shows that on goods falling under Heading No.49.06 there were no Tariff rate of duty. We, however, feel that this being a question of fact is more appropriately to be decided by the jurisdictional Executive Officer and for this purpose, the matter should be remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs. Shri Sanklecha here takes us through the comments made on the valuation of the drawings, designs etc. in the cited judgement of the Tribunal. He submits that the agreement entered into by his clients does not separately show the valuation for the drawings, designs etc. He apprehends that perhaps the Commissioner may take the entire contract value for the valuation of drawings, designs etc and would like us to make certain observations. We decline t o do so. The appellants are free to make before the Commissioner the relevant arguments as to the valuation With this observation, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order in so far as it relates to the present appellants and remand the proceedings back to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs for disposal.
4. (Dictated in Court)