Skip to content


ibm World Trade Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Reported in(1985)LC158Tri(Delhi)
Appellantibm World Trade Corporation
RespondentCollector of Customs
Excerpt:
.....appeal, shri s. sundara raman, controller of accounts of the appellants in support of appellant's claim for classification under ict 72(b), 72(3) or 72(6), as the case may be, relied on the following : (i) government of india's order nos. 599-b to 623-b, dated 6-8-1977 ; (ii) board's tariff advice contained in c.b.e.c's letter no. f. 526/39/75- cus (tu), dated 2-2-1976 ; (iv) c.e.g.a.t. decision in appellants case, order no. 279/1984-b, dated 11-4-1984, where the tribunal following tata sons' case ordered classification under 72(b), 72(3) or 72(6), as the case may be, and (v) in support of the argument that the goods 'as is machines' at the relevant time were not classifiable under t.i. 33d of c.e.t., shri sundara raman relied on appellants own case reported in 1980 e.l.t. 274.5. on.....
Judgment:
1. Question for decision in these two appeals, originally filed as Revision Applications to the Government of India, transferred to the Tribunal and being taken up as appeals, which are being disposed of by this common order are classification of 'As is machi- nes' imported by the appellants under Heading 72(b)-ICT as claimed by the appellants or Heading 73-ICT as held by the lower authorities and whether they are chargeable to additional duty (countervailing duty) as Office Machines under Item 33D of the Central Excise Tariff.

2. The appellants imported Data Processing Machines manufactured outside India and which had outlived their economic life and were beyond economic repair. They were imported by the appellants under Import Licences on 'As is condition' for the purpose of salvaging such parts thereof as were still usable for the purpose of being used in their manufacturing programme in India. Such dis-used Data Processing machines were not in working condition and were also known 'As is Machines' or dis-used D.P. Equipment.

3. The orders-in-originals, passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs are not in the file. From the orders-in-appeal dated 22-7-1976, passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, it appears that the goods were classified under Heading 73-ICT and not under Heading 72(b)-ICT, as claimed by the appellants and were also held liable to countervailing duty under Tariff Item 33D of the Central Excise Tariff as Office Machines. The orders were upheld in appeal by the Appallate Collector of Customs, Bombay, hence the present appeals.

4. At the hearing of the appeal, Shri S. Sundara Raman, Controller of Accounts of the Appellants in support of appellant's claim for classification under ICT 72(b), 72(3) or 72(6), as the case may be, relied on the following : (i) Government of India's order Nos. 599-B to 623-B, dated 6-8-1977 ; (ii) Board's Tariff advice contained in C.B.E.C's letter No. F. 526/39/75- Cus (TU), dated 2-2-1976 ; (iv) C.E.G.A.T. decision in appellants case, Order No. 279/1984-B, dated 11-4-1984, where the Tribunal following Tata Sons' case ordered classification under 72(b), 72(3) or 72(6), as the case may be, and (v) In support of the argument that the goods 'As is Machines' at the relevant time were not classifiable under T.I. 33D of C.E.T., Shri Sundara Raman relied on appellants own case reported in 1980 E.L.T. 274.

5. On behalf of the Department, Shri Chandramouli, learned Senior Departmental Representative had no comments to make on the appellants' claim.

6. Though copies of precedents at (4(i) and (ii) above are claimed to have been filed along with the papers, the same are not available.

Another Government of India decision being No. 8700 dated 3-1-1969 has been filed but it deals with valuation of 'As is Machines' and has no relevance with the present claim. Appellants' claim however for classification under heading 72(b), 72(3) or 72(6)-ICT, as the case may be, would have to be accepted in view of precedents at 4(iii) and (iv) above.

As to appellants'claim that goods were not classifiable under T.I. 33D and at the relevant time not chargeable to additional duty (countervailing duty) in view of precedent at 4(v) above, the same would have to be accepted.

7. As a result appellants' claim for classification under Head 72(b), 72(3) or 72(6), as the case may be, is accepted. Goods are held not falling under T.I. 33D, at the relevant time, and therefore not chargeable to additional duty (c.v. duty). The impugned orders are modified accordingly and appeals allowed. Ordered accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //