Skip to content


Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. Vs. the Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1983)LC1816DTri(Delhi)
AppellantBharat Earth Movers Ltd.
RespondentThe Collector of Customs
Excerpt:
.....by the appellate collector of customs, madras.3. in this case the appellants claimed that the hoses imported by them were assessable as components chargeable to customs duty at 40% under heading 84.23 of the customs tariff act, 1975, and counter-vailing duty of 8% applicable to item 68 of the c.e.t. will consequented relief.their claim had been rejected by the appellate collector of customs as unsubstantiated.4. shri ramaseshan, on behalf of the appellants, produced catalogue with drawings of the hoses imported by them which clearly brings out that the goods in issue were hoses with fittings exclusively meant for use on crawler tractors/bulldozers. shri ramaseshan further drew attention to the certificate given by the rubber institute of india, kottayam to establish that the hoses.....
Judgment:
2. This is a revision application to the Central Government (now transferred to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 13IB) against the order-in-appeal No. C. 3/2121/81, dated 27.8.81, passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras.

3. In this case the appellants claimed that the hoses imported by them were assessable as components chargeable to Customs duty at 40% under heading 84.23 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and Counter-vailing duty of 8% applicable to item 68 of the C.E.T. will consequented relief.

Their claim had been rejected by the Appellate Collector of Customs as unsubstantiated.

4. Shri Ramaseshan, on behalf of the appellants, produced catalogue with drawings of the hoses imported by them which clearly brings out that the goods in issue were hoses with fittings exclusively meant for use on Crawler Tractors/Bulldozers. Shri Ramaseshan further drew attention to the certificate given by the Rubber Institute of India, Kottayam to establish that the hoses imported were made of hardened rubber. Shri Sunder Rajan, on behalf of the respondent, countered the argument of the appellants by quoting Note 1 (a) of Section XVI relating to Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff and stated that the hoses which were made of unhardened vulcanised rubber and as such he argued that they are not covered by that Section and thus the assessment made by the Assistant Collector of Customs was correct.

5. The certificate issued by the Rubber Institute of India, Kottayam establishes that the hoses imported were made of hardened rubber and as such we have no doubt in our minds that they would not attract the exclusion of said Section XVI Note (1)(a). Further the description as given in the Bill of Entry as hose assembly establishes that they were really hoses with fittings. The part numbers (6685-71-9511) given in the invoice and the catalogue also correlate.

6. In view of the above evidence, we hold that the goods in issue should be classified under heading No. 84.23 of the Customs Tariff read with item 68 of the Central-Excise Tariff with consequential relief to the appellants.


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