Skip to content


Nellimarala Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Reported in(1984)(15)ELT419TriDel
AppellantNellimarala Jute Mills Co. Ltd.
RespondentCollector of Customs
Excerpt:
.....of customs, calcutta by his order dated 1-4-77. hence the present appeal.3. at the hearing of the appeal shri s.k. chatterjee, learned consultant for the appellants submitted that as the goods were prima facie classifiable under two or more headings, the specific heading 84.62(1) should have been preferred. heading 84.62(2) was not applicable in the appellants' case. he also relied on tariff public notice 115/76, dated 14-12-1976 wherein it has been declared that compound or roller bearings are correctly classifiable under heading 84.62(1) of the cta 1975. the lower authorities were in error in relying on the interpretation rules and ignoring this tariff advice. he also relied on the decision of the collectors' conference given at page 6 of the customs tariff guide (first edition).4......
Judgment:
1. The short question for decision in this appeal, originally filed as a revision application to the Govt. of India is whether Compound ball and roller bearing valued at Rs. 8,143/-c.i.f. should have been classified under heading 84.62(1) of the CTA as claimed by the appellants or under heading 84.62(2) of the CTA as done by the lower authorities.

2. The Asstt. Collector of Customs, Calcutta by his order dated 27-8-76 rejected the appellants' claim for classification under heading 84.62(1). The order was upheld in appeal by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta by his order dated 1-4-77. Hence the present appeal.

3. At the hearing of the appeal Shri S.K. Chatterjee, learned Consultant for the appellants submitted that as the goods were prima facie classifiable under two or more headings, the specific heading 84.62(1) should have been preferred. Heading 84.62(2) was not applicable in the appellants' case. He also relied on tariff Public Notice 115/76, dated 14-12-1976 wherein it has been declared that compound or roller bearings are correctly classifiable under Heading 84.62(1) of the CTA 1975. The lower authorities were in error in relying on the interpretation Rules and ignoring this tariff advice. He also relied on the decision of the Collectors' Conference given at page 6 of the Customs Tariff Guide (first edition).

4. The hearing of the appeal was first fixed for 21st Sept., 1983 and was then adjourned to 26th Sept., 1983. On 26-9-83 Shri K.V.Kunhikrishnan, representing the respondent raised an objection that the revision application, now the appeal, had not been filed by the appellants, namely, M/s Nellimarala Jute Mills Co. Ltd. but by their clearing agents, the Express Clearing Agency. The Bench was not inclined to entertain this objection at the belated stage. It may be stated that the appeal was fixed for hearing on 1-8-83, then adjourned to 21-9-83 but on the earlier dates this objection had not been taken: (Objection having been taken at belated stage i.e. on 26-9-83, it was rejected). After this was communicated to Shri Kunhiskrishnan, he submitted that question of classification of compound ball and roller bearings has been examined by the Department and that after consulting the Deptt. he conceded that they are correctly classifiable under Heading 84.62(1) of CTA.5. In view of the concession, the appeal is allowed and it is ordered that the compound ball and roller bearings imported by the appellants would be classified under Heading 84.62 (1) of CTA with consequential refund to the appellants.


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