Skip to content


Krishna and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Reported in(1983)(14)ELT2017TriDel
AppellantKrishna and Co.
RespondentCollector of Customs
Excerpt:
.....classification and rejected the claim for refund. the order was upheld on appeal by collector of customs (appeals) bombay by his order issued on 20-1-1983.hence the present appeal.3. though in the memo of appeal a number of grounds were raised, during arguments shri m.a. rangaswamy, learned advocate for the appellants mainly urged that the goods imported by the appellants are pressure reducing valves, rightly classifiable under heading 84.61(2) of the customs tariff act. on behalf of the respondent shri m. chatterjee, jdr first requested for adjournment on the ground that he had not received the records from the collector of customs. it was observed that earlier also an adjournment had been granted on the request of the respondent.the request for adjournment was rejected. shri m......
Judgment:
1. The question for decision in this appeal to the Tribunal is appropriate classification of goods claimed to be relief valves- whether they should be classified under heading 84.61(2) of CTA as claimed by the appellants or under heading 84.10(3) as done by the lower authorities.

2. The appellants by B/E 2477/216 imported 2 cases of spare parts of Earth moving machinery. In the invoice the goods are described as relief valves. At the time of clearance appellants claimed classification under heading 84.11(1) of C.T.A. The authorities classified the goods under Heading 84.10(3) of CTA. The appellants applied to the Asstt. Collector for reclassification under heading 84.61 of CTA and refund. The Asstt. Collector by his order No.8/26-A6/827 issued on 14-9-1982 confirmed the original classification and rejected the claim for refund. The order was upheld on appeal by Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay by his order issued on 20-1-1983.

Hence the present appeal.

3. Though in the memo of appeal a number of grounds were raised, during arguments Shri M.A. Rangaswamy, learned advocate for the appellants mainly urged that the goods imported by the appellants are pressure reducing valves, rightly classifiable under heading 84.61(2) of the Customs Tariff Act. On behalf of the respondent Shri M. Chatterjee, JDR first requested for adjournment on the ground that he had not received the records from the Collector of Customs. It was observed that earlier also an adjournment had been granted on the request of the respondent.

The request for adjournment was rejected. Shri M. Chatterjee, then defended the orders passed by the lower authorities.

4. The learned Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay has not given any clear cut findings whether the goods in question are pressure reducing valves or not. He has observed that valve mentioned under heading 84.61(2) are meant for pipes, boiler shells, tanks, vats and the like.

He added that the impugned goods is a plunger forming an integral part of the machinery and classifiable part of the parent item. The Asstt.

Collector of Customs also did not give a clear finding. He stated that the valve is a spring loaded plunger and described its function. He then added that it is a part of the oil pump itself, it is neither a pipe fitting nor for containers. Hence heading 84.61 could not be applied to it.

5. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the party. We observe that the nature of the goods involved in the case is one of the fact; if the imported goods is pressure reducing valve, it would fall under item 84.61(2) and if not pressure reducing valve and is considered an integral part of the machines it would attract item 84.10 of the CTA. The matter would have to be remanded for a de novo examination in the light of observation made in the order.

6. As a result the appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside and the matter remanded to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) for a denovo decision in the light of observations made above. As the goods are still under detention, the matter should be decided as early as possible but not later than 90 days from the receipt of this order.


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