Skip to content


Tulsidas Khimji Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Reported in(1983)LC384DTri(Delhi)
AppellantTulsidas Khimji Pvt. Ltd.
RespondentCollector of Customs
Excerpt:
.....collector also held that the appellant's claim, though not explicitly put forth to the benefits of customs notification no. 350/76, was not substantiated since they had not submitted the evidence required in terms of the said notification. on these grounds, he rejected the appeal. it is against this order that the appellants filed a revision application to the central government which, as earlier pointed out, stands transferred to this tribunal for disposal.3. since no one had appeared on behalf of the appellants and since it did not appear that the appellants were diligent in prosecuting the appeal, the bench decided to proceed with the merits of the case rather than dismiss the appeal for default of the appearance of the appellants.4. appearing on behalf of the respondent, shri.....
Judgment:
This is a Revision Application to the Central Government which stands transferred to this Tribunal under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, for disposal as if it were an appeal presented before it.

2. M/s. Denison Hydraulics India Ltd. imported a consignment of "Solenoids" through the Port of Bombay. The goods were classified under Heading No. 85.18/27(1) of the Customs Tariff Schedule and assessed to duty at 60% ad valorem (basic duty) plus 15% ad valorem (Auxiliary duty). The Appellants cleared the goods on payment of the duty so assessed. Later on M/s. Tulsidas Khimji Pvt. Ltd., Licensed Customs House Agents, filed a refund application before the Assistant Collector of Customs, on behalf of the said importers, claiming re-assessment of the goods under Heading 84.61(2) of the Customs Tariff Schedule. The Assistant Collector held that in accordance with Rule 3(a) of the Rules for Interpretation of the Customs Tariff Schedule (hereinafter called the Interpretative Rules), the most specific heading had to be preferred to a more general description for the purpose of tariff classification and that the subject 'Solenoids' were correctly classifiable under heading No. 85.28. Since the rate of duty under the said heading was the same as was charged from the Importers, the Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim as untenable. Aggrieved with this order, the Custom House Agents filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector of Customs who held that the assessment made by the Customs authorities was correct and that the Assistant Collector's order rejecting the refund claim was also correct. The Appellate Collector also held that the Appellant's claim, though not explicitly put forth to the benefits of Customs Notification No. 350/76, was not substantiated since they had not submitted the evidence required in terms of the said Notification. On these grounds, he rejected the appeal. It is against this order that the Appellants filed a Revision Application to the Central Government which, as earlier pointed out, stands transferred to this Tribunal for disposal.

3. Since no one had appeared on behalf of the Appellants and since it did not appear that the Appellants were diligent in prosecuting the appeal, the Bench decided to proceed with the merits of the case rather than dismiss the appeal for default of the appearance of the Appellants.

4. Appearing on behalf of the Respondent, Shri Raghavan Iyer submitted that 'Solenoid' (which is a coil or wire wound in the form of a helix which exhibits the powers of attraction and repulsion at each end usually associated with a magnet) found use in a number of electrical apparatus and machines. The .question of classifying the imported Solenoids as parts of solenoid- operated valves would arise only if it was shown that the imported solenoids were suitable for use solely or principally with a particular solenoid-operated valve or such valves.

The Appellants had not adduced any evidence in this behalf. These solenoids were electrical items having an individual function and were, therefore, correctly classifiable under heading 85.18/27(1) of the Customs, Tariff Schedule. Shri Iyer further submitted that notification No. 350/76 which extended the concessional rate of duty applicable to articles specified in the Schedule thereto to parts required for the purpose of initial setting up or for assembly or manufacture of such articles did not apply to the present case since heading No.85.18/27(1) did not figure in the said schedule to the Notification.

For that matter, he added heading No. 84.61(2) also did not figure in the said Schedule. Though Shri Iyer made an attempt to show that heading No. 85.28 would also be a competing item, later he gave up that attempt.

5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions contained in the memorandum of appeal and the submissions of Shri Iyer. At the outset, we must express our disappointment at the way the appeal has been filed and the lack of diligence in prosecuting it by submission of the required evidence in support of the contentions in the appeal. A 'Solenoid' is a coil of wire wound in the form of a helix which exhibits the powers of attraction and repulsion at each and usually associated with a magnet. It is, therefore, clear that Solenoid is an appliance in its own right having a specific function. Unless, therefore, it is shown that the imported Solenoides were suitable for use solely or principally with solenoid-operated valves, the Appellants' contention that they fell for classification under Heading 84.61(2) is not acceptable. In this connection, we note that the claim of the Appellants as set out in the memorandum of appeal (revision) is solely with reference to Notification No. 350/76. The Custom duty concession contained in the said Notification is applicable only in respect of articles imported for the purpose of the initial setting up or for the assembly or for the manufacture of articles falling within the schedule to the said Notification. None of the headings 84.61, 85.18/27(1) or 85.28 appear in this schedule. Therefore, the question of extending the benefits of the Notification to the Appellants does not arise. In the result, the appeal is rejected.


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