Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (4.65 seconds)Collector Of Customs, Bombay vs Perfect Machine Tools Co. Pvt. Ltd. on 15 October, 1997
In the case of CC, Bombay v. Perfect Machine Tools Co, Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has clearly noted that when an accessory imported along with machine, then they cannot be treated as part and parcel of the machine. Merely because without the attachment, the machine cannot work independently is no ground for granting the benefit of exemption. It was also noticed therein that an accessory/attachment cannot be treated as part of the machine merely because it cannot be operated independently since the machine can be operated in the absence of them. This has been the settled position of law. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) has fallen in error, without giving any reasoning and without application of mind and examining the terms of the notification has granted the benefit, which is not legal and proper. The computer peripherals are not used as "parts" or "parts for repair of dredger" and it has no independent function as parts for repair of dredger and, therefore, the claim was unsustainable. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the Order-in-Original in respect of this item is also confirmed.
T.I. Miller Ltd. vs Union Of India And Anr. on 20 July, 1983
43. The Madras High Court in the case of T.I Miller Ltd. v. UOI, 1991 (53) E.L.T. 214 (Mad.) held that the principle of estoppel is not applicable in tax matters and that assessment for one period is not final and conclusive for subsequent assessment periods. While examining the issue pertaining to dynamo to be considered as cycle part or not, the High Court held that since cycle can be used without dynamo, it is not part of a cycle. It observed that further as to how the use of a dynamo in relation to a cycle has been understood by the Govt. of India for the purpose of this Act (Excise Tariff Act) and whether it was treated as an accessory or as a cycle part, the Notification No. 3/86-C.E., dated 16-1-86 provided sufficient guidance. The notification chose to grant relief for cycle accessories and that the notification has not treated dynamo as cycle part but only as an accessory. Therefore, it held that dynamo cannot but be treated as an exemption by relying upon Notification Nos. 54/75, 86/79 and 102/80.
Andhra Pradesh Heavy Machinery & ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raipur on 9 October, 2001
He also contended that the judgment cited by DR in the case of CC v. Goodwill Engg. Works; A.P. Heavy Machinery & Engg. Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad, and Seagull Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai (supra) are in fact more supportive to the importer's claim. He also contended that the Tribunal in the case of Bralco Metal Inds.
Annapurna Carbon Industries Co vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 March, 1976
40. With regard to the term "accessory" the Apex Court in the case of Annapurna Carbon Industries v. State of A.P.- (1976) 37 STC 378 (S.C.) observed that the deciding factor to consider the item to be an accessory is the predominant or ordinary purpose or use and it is not enough to show that the articles can be put to other uses also. It was held therein that the general or predominant use seems to determine the category in which an article will fall. Examining the term "accessories'" in respect of the different entries used in the Schedule to describe the goods, the Apex Court held that it was shown that the word was construed taking into account the fact whether the goods have been manufactured for use as an aid or addition to any of the specified articles in the entry or not. It was also laid down that when it was intended to confine the entry to particular gadgets and particulars thereof, the entry said so; and, therefore, the expression "accessories thereof must mean a general or predominant use of the article only as an accessory of one of the specified items mentioned in that entry.
Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 24 August, 2001
In the case of Sandwik Asia Ltd. v. CCE, Pune, 1997 (93) E.L.T. 475, the Tribunal observed that the part is one without which particular machinery was not operational or could not suitably discharge the function for which it had been designed.
Org Systems And Dde Org Systems Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 28 February, 2001
84.01 to 84.79, or parts thereof; articles of heading No. 84.81 or 84.82 or, provided they constitute integral parts of engines or motors, articles of heading No. 84.83 and they all are excluded from the ambit of Section XVII. There is a clear heading for computers under 84.71 under the heading "automatic data processing machines and units thereof". The classification has to be dealt with regard to the items as has been held in several judgments of the Tribunals and the Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of O.R.G. Systems v. CCE, Vado-dara, 1998 (102) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) noted that computer peripherals and other systems software were merely additional devices meant to increase the memory or storage capacity of the computers and other facilities. In the light of this judgment, they are parts of computers and they are required to be classified under Heading 84.71 as held by the lower authorities.
Section 2 in The Customs Tariff Act, 1975 [Entire Act]
P.C. Doshi And Anr. vs 7Th Income-Tax Officer, C-I Ward, ... on 1 February, 1967
(P) Ltd. v. CC Bombay, 1994 (74) E.L.T. 920 (T) has held that spare part is an item which may be an assembly or sub-assembly of the machine or can be required to be replaced with a part or sub-assembly is worn out and hence in that light the Tribunal held that cutters fitted with scalping machine are inter-changeable tools for the purpose of cutting operation.