Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Procter And Gamble Hygine And Health ... vs Commissioner Of Customs on 18 July, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006(197)ELT367(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER C. Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides at length. We find that the lower appellate authority has decided against he appellant and has given the following findings: -
"The appellant have imported VSAT's some of which is admittedly installed by them in their premises and others at different places. These are used for communication between manufacturer, distributor and marketing points to achieve better inventory control. It is seen that the contract for registration for import of goods pertains to initial setting up of a plant for manufacture of Vicks Vaporub". It is the contention of the appellant that these goods may be treated as auxiliary goods for the purpose of project import benefit. They are also relying on recommendation certification issued by Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers. It is seen that in view of Tribunal decision in Commissioner v. GE Plastics India Ltd. 1999 (111) EL.T. 483 (T) in which it was held that in issue of classification of imported goods judgment of Customs authority prevail that of licensing authorities of advisory authorities. The said decision was given in the context of import under Project import, hence the ratio is also applicable here. The appellants ar relying on Tribunal decision in the case of Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd. v. CC, Bombay, 1997 (73) ECR 331 (T) in which it was held that automatic telephone exchange for fertilizer plan to be regarded as auxiliary equipment for initial setting up. In the said case hon'ble Tribunal observed that a fertilizer plant is a complicated one with several parts and sections which require close co-ordination which can be achieved only by mutual communication between several sections of the plant. Further without installation and operation of the automatic telephone exchange, the plant cannot be commissioned and it is unsafe to commission or operate the plant without the telephone exchange. I find the facts of the present cae are totally different. Admittedly the goods are being used by the appellant to maintain communication between manufacturers, distributor and marketing points to achieve better inventory control. Hence the decisions cited by the appellant is not applicable here. It is settled legal position that. "A decision as is well-known is an authority for which it is decided and not what can logically be reduced there from. Tis also well-settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the presidential value of a decision "(See Smt. Ram Rakhi v. Union of India and Ors. . Delhi administration (NCT of Delhi) V. Manoharlal . Haryana Financial Corporation and Anr. v. M/s Jagdamba Oil Mills and Anr. and Dr. Nalini Mahajan Eyc. v. Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and Ors. ".
2. We find from the above that the lower appellant authority has considered all aspects of the case including the arguments advanced by the appellants. The relevant entry for project imports under CTH 9801 reads as follows: -
"All items of machinery including prime movers, instruments, apparatus and appliance, control gear and transmission equipment, auxiliary equipment (including those required for research and development purposes. Testing and quality control), as well as all components (whether finished or not) or raw material for the manufacture of the aforesaid items and their components, required for the initial setting up of a unit, or the substantial expansion of an existing unit, of a specified:
(1) industrial plant, (2) Irrigation project, (3) Power project, (4) Mining project (5) project for the exploration f or oil or other minerals, and (6) such other project as the Central Government may, having regard to the economics development of the country notify in the official Gazette in this behalf and spare parts, other raw materials (including semi finished materials of consumable stores) not exceeding 10% of the value of the goods specified above, provided that such spare parts, raw material or consumable stores are essential for the maintenance of the plant or project mentioned in (1) to (6) above".
3. We find that by no stretch of imagination the V-SAT equipments which are installed in different places and are used for communication purposes only can be considered to be covered under the said heading 9801.00. As such, we are of the view that the lower appellant authority has correctly decided the appeal against the appellants and the same does not require any interference.
4. We dismiss the appeal, as it has no merits.