Skip to content


Overseas Trading Co. a/C Haryana Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1983)LC1332Tri(Delhi)
AppellantOverseas Trading Co. a/C Haryana
RespondentCollector of Customs
Excerpt:
.....combines. their claim was rejected by the appellate collector on the ground that the subject goods were specified elsewhere in the tariff and the appellants had not produced any evidence before him to establish their exclusive use in the combines. during the hearing before us, the department's representative stated that the subject goods included screws, ball bearings, washers, seals; chains and keys which were specifically listed in items 63(33), 72(35), 63(16), 39(1), 63(28) and 71(b)ict, respectively, and could not therefore be assessed under the residuary item 72(3) ict. the appellants produced the catalogue for massey-ferguson combines and showed the relevant drawings and part numbers in respect of the subject goods. they maintained that the subject goods were.....
Judgment:
2. The appellants seek re-assessment of items III to XI of the relevant Bill of Entry at lower rate of duty under Item 72(3) of the erstwhile Indian Customs Tariff on the ground that these are catalogued parts of Massey-Ferguson Combines. Their claim was rejected by the Appellate Collector on the ground that the subject goods were specified elsewhere in the Tariff and the appellants had not produced any evidence before him to establish their exclusive use in the Combines. During the hearing before us, the Department's representative stated that the subject goods included screws, ball bearings, washers, seals; chains and keys which were specifically listed in items 63(33), 72(35), 63(16), 39(1), 63(28) and 71(b)ICT, respectively, and could not therefore be assessed under the residuary item 72(3) ICT. The appellants produced the catalogue for Massey-Ferguson Combines and showed the relevant drawings and part numbers in respect of the subject goods. They maintained that the subject goods were specially designed for exclusive use on Massey-Ferguson Combine Harvesters and they cannot be used anywhere else.

3. We have carefully considered the matter. After seeing the catalogue and the drawings, we are satisfied that the subject goods were specially designed for exclusive use on Massey-Ferguson Combines. Since the appellants had not produced the relevant catalogue and the drawings before the Custom House at the time of assessment and later before the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector, the lower authorities were just led by the nomenclature of the subject goods and they considered them as general purpose hardware items. We do not agree with the Department's representative that even when special design and exclusive use of components arc established, they should still be classified as general purpose items of hardware, rubber manufactures etc. We hold that for specially designed machinery components having exclusive use on some machine, resort should be had to the items relating to machinery and components for proper classification. In this view of the matter, while classification of ball bearings under the specific component parts, item 72(35) is sustainable, classification of the remaining goods as general purpose items of hardware and rubber manufactures cannot be sustained. The proper classification for such remaining goods is item 72(31 ICT as claimed by the appellants.

Accordingly, we reject the appeal in respect of ball bearings and allow it with consequential relief in respect of the remaining goods. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.


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