Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay-I & ... vs Parle Exports (P) Ltd on 22 November, 1988
In this context, the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as rendered in the case of Deshbandhu Gupta & Co. and Ors. v. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. as reported in AIR 1979 S.C. 1049 is relied alongwith Ruling rendered in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. as reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 741 and in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Mahi Traders as reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 266. Therefore, it is submitted that it cannot be contended that by reason of cutting, bevelling (in 2% of cases) which rendered pipings and tubings becoming usable as parts and components of machinery ceased to be pipings and tubings, by virtue of such cutting and bevelling. It is also submitted that Notification No. 197/67, both before and after 1-3-1986, shows a clear legislative intent to exempt from duty pipes and tubes made into parts and components. It is submitted that this clear intent would be wholly frustrated and the Notification rendered largely nugatory if it is held that pipes and tubes which have become known as machinery parts have ceased to be pipes and tubes and therefore, such an interpretation as placed by the ld. Collector (Appeals) is not a correct interpretation. It is also submitted that the ratio of the Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Precision Rubber Ind. is binding on the Tribunal and there is no reason to differ for the same, in the context of there being no material difference in the language of Tariff Item 16A and Heading 40.09.
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Mahi Traders & Ors. Etc. Etc on 3 February, 1989
In this context, the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as rendered in the case of Deshbandhu Gupta & Co. and Ors. v. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. as reported in AIR 1979 S.C. 1049 is relied alongwith Ruling rendered in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. as reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 741 and in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Mahi Traders as reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 266. Therefore, it is submitted that it cannot be contended that by reason of cutting, bevelling (in 2% of cases) which rendered pipings and tubings becoming usable as parts and components of machinery ceased to be pipings and tubings, by virtue of such cutting and bevelling. It is also submitted that Notification No. 197/67, both before and after 1-3-1986, shows a clear legislative intent to exempt from duty pipes and tubes made into parts and components. It is submitted that this clear intent would be wholly frustrated and the Notification rendered largely nugatory if it is held that pipes and tubes which have become known as machinery parts have ceased to be pipes and tubes and therefore, such an interpretation as placed by the ld. Collector (Appeals) is not a correct interpretation. It is also submitted that the ratio of the Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Precision Rubber Ind. is binding on the Tribunal and there is no reason to differ for the same, in the context of there being no material difference in the language of Tariff Item 16A and Heading 40.09.
Desh Bandhu Gupta & Co. & Ors vs Delhi Stock Exchange Assn. Ltd on 23 February, 1979
In the case of Track Parts Corpn., the Tribunal has held that hose assembly made of vulcanised rubber other than hard rubber with end fittings are classifiable under sub-heading 4009.50 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. A similar argument as raised by the ld. SDR had been raised in that case but the Tribunal rejected the same. This ruling has got a clear applicability to the facts of the present case. The ld. SDR relied on the ruling rendered in the case of Kohinoor Rubber Mill. This ruling is not applicable to the facts of the present case and is clearly distinguishable. As in Para 28 of the said ruling at page 827, the Tribunal after a detailed examination of the matter, has come to the conclusion that the subject goods are not pipes and tubes at all and therefore in that context held that the question of applicability of Chapter 40 did not arise. In this particular case, the facts are different and therefore, the ratio is not applicable.
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Track Parts Corporation vs Collector Of Customs on 27 May, 1991
9. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. The question that falls for our consideration is as to whether the products "Aprons and Cots" which have been cut to specific sizes and certain processes carried out to make them as specific components for use in the textile machinery would be excluded from the sub-heading 4009.99 and be included under Chapter Heading 8448.00 as "Parts and accessories suitable for use, solely or principally with the machines of this heading or of Heading No. 84.44, 84.45, 84.46 or 84.47 (for example, spindles and spindle flyers, card, clothing, combs, extruding nipples, shuttles, healds and heald-frames, hosiery needle)". In this regard, the revenue is also relying on the Chapter Note 2 of Section XVI which pertains to the classification of parts. We also notice that Note 1A of Section XVI states that this section does not cover articles of a kind used in a machinery or mechanical or electrical appliances or for other technical uses, unhardened vulcanised rubber (40.16). As per this note, articles of unhardened vulcanised rubber for other technical uses fall within the Heading No. 40.16 and are excluded from Chapter 84. However, the Revenue has given up the classification under the Heading 40.16 and we are not required to dwell upon this note, in view of the revenue contending for classification under Heading 84.48. It is, now well settled that before we go to the later heading as in the present case Chapter 84, it is necessary for us to eliminate Chapter 40 for the purpose of classification. The Rule 3(a) of Rules for Interpretation of the Schedule of the Tariff Act also clearly lays down that when classification under two or more headings are possible in that case, the headings which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to heading providing the more general description. Therefore, it follows that we have to first eliminate the Chapter Heading 40 before going to Chapter 84 in the present case. It has been the case of the assessee that pipes and tubes cut to similar sizes and subjected to processes of bevelling, do not cease to be pipes and tubes. In this context, they have relied on the principle of 'contemporanea expositio' in as much as they have drawn the analogy that the intention of the Government as expressed in the notification which has got statutory effect, should be taken into consideration while interpreting the heading for the purpose of classification. In this regard the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been cited before us. It has been strongly argued before us that the question has already been settled by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Precision Rubber Ind. and therefore, the question.of classification gets settled thereby and that the change of tariff would not make any difference, in as much as the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has clearly held that merely because the item has been converted into a component from pipes and tubes, it does not cease to be pipes and tubes, by virtue of such cutting and bevelling processes. In order to buttress the arguments, the ld. Sr. Advocate has also relied on the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bharat Forge & Press Ind. Ltd., Tract Parts Corpn., Parle Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Precision Rubber Industries vs Collector Of Central Excise And Ors. on 7 March, 1990
The impugned order in the first appeal was for classification of the said goods under Heading 84.48 as machinery parts. The latter view found favour with the learned Vice President. He has accordingly proposed dismissal of Inarco's appeal. The learned Judicial Member had, however, upheld the appellants' plea for classification of the goods under Heading 40.09, going by the Bombay High Court judgment in Precision Rubber Industries v. Collector of Central Excise [1990 (49) E.L.T. 170] wherein it was held that cots and aprons were classifiable as Piping and Tubing of unhardened rubber under Tariff Item 16A as the Tariff stood at that time and not under Item 68 as applied by the department. In coming to the said decision, the High Court overruled a Tribunal decision reported in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 469 in the case of Inarco themselves classifying the same products under Tariff Item 68 of the Tariff then in force, treating the goods as component parts of textile machinery, wholly distinct from tubing and piping from which they are made. While the learned Member (Judicial) had gone by the said High Court judgment, the learned Vice President has held that judgment was rendered under the old Tariff and hence not applicable to the present problem as there has been a sea change because of the new Tariff with new Tariff Headings with different wording and chapter notes and section notes.
1