Tata Engineering and Locomotive Vs. Collr. of Cus.

1. all these appeals involving common question of law and facts were heard together and were disposed of through this common order.2. the appellants imported memory modules, computer peripherals and spares and claimed concessional activity under notification no. 282/84.the concession was denied to them on the ground that notification exempted computers and not the parts of computers.3. arguing for the appellants ld. advocate submitted that necessary certificate in terms of notification had been obtained from deptt. of electronics and therefore, customs ought to have granted them the exemption.4. ld. dr on the other hand submits that notification exempts computers and not computer parts and two cannot be equited.5. we have heard both sides. notification no. 282/84, dated 19-11-1984 exempts computer falling under sub-heading of heading 84.51/55 at the material time and under 84.71 after march, 1986. the notification also prescribes a certificate from jt. director in the department of electronics that the computers of the kind and type in question are not manufactured in india and certifies to this effect and recommends the grant of the above exemption. both sides agree that what was imported, is not a complete computer. exemption notification has to be construed strictly but only procedural aspect may be construed liberally after construing the fact of exemption strictly. we have, therefore, to see whether the claim to exemption as such is satisfied here. it is very clear to us that the impugned goods cannot be termed as computers within the meaning of notification 282/84 and therefore, the impugned goods are not entitled to partial exemption. in view of this, we reject all these appeals and uphold the impugned orders.