Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Winner Electricals Vs. Collector of Customs

Winner Electricals vs Collector of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided May 26, 1997
~5 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/11252

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Winner Electricals

Respondent

Collector of Customs

Legal References

Reported In
(1997)LC669Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

.....in price and the quality is yet the same. notification no. 31 exempts super kanthal heating element. there is no dispute about the use of the product. the collector himself admits that super kanthal heating elements and mosilit heating elements are technically one and the same. the benefit has, however, been denied on the ground that notification mentioned only super kanthal heating elements.5. once we accept the fact that super kanthal and mosilit heating elements refer only to trade name it will follow that the exemption in fact is to heating elements used in ferrite, etc. exemption cannot be limited or conditioned by a trade name. what is exempted is a heating element for a particular purpose. the authorities specified in the notification have duly certified that what is imported as mosilit heating element is the same as super kanthal heating element. one of the most important conditions of the notification, that is, recommendatory letter from the authorities specified in the notification has been complied with. notification cannot be read in a manner as to make it meaningless. we cannot accept the contention that exemption has to be restricted only to a particular trade name. it could not be the intention to exempt a particular trade name and yet deny exemption to exactly same goods with the same composition but bearing another trade name. it is true that exemption has to be a construed strictly but, once the fact of exemption is satisfied, notification has to be given full force. considering the various certificates issued by statutory authorities and the fact that difference in two products is not one of the substance but only of trade name, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in making out a case in their favour. we, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The appellants imported a consignment of Mosilit Heating Elements.

They claimed the benefit of Customs Notification No. 347/86. They had also obtained a certificate recommending grant of the concessional rate of duty from Commissioner of Industries. Their claim was rejected on the ground that Entry 2 of Notification 347/86 exempts Super Kanthal Heating Elements whereas they have imported Mosilit Heating Elements which is a product of Germany.

2. Ld. Consultant drew attention to various certificates indicating that both are same and only difference is that Super Kanthal Heating Element is a trade mark of Swedish Company whereas Mosilit Heating Element is a trade mark of a German Company. Ld. Consultant submits that subsequently in 1982, the notification itself had been amended to provide exemption to Heating Element.

3. Ld. DR lays considerable force on the argument that the notification has to be interpretated strictly and it cannot be interpretated in a manner so as to enlarge its scope and amendment cannot have retrospective effect. Ld. DR refers to the judgment rendered in the case of Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur(S.C.) and Bombay Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 4. We have heard both sides. The notification exempts goods specified in the table appended to the notification subject to the condition that; "An officer not below the rank of a Joint Director in the Department of Electronics of the Govt. of India or a Joint Director in the Directorate of Industries of the Govt. of a State or an Additional Industrial Adviser in the Directorate General of Technical Development of the Govt. of India, as the case may be, is satisfied that the goods in question are required for the purpose specified in Col. 4 of the said table".

The appeal papers contain the following certificate from Industrial Adviser (Electronics), Office of the Development Commissioner, Ministry of Industry, Govt. of India : "It is to clarify that Kanthal Super Heating Elements and Mosilit Heating Elements are one and same technically and is composed of Chemical compound namely Molybdenum Silicide having Chemical Composition MoSi2. Both operate at a temperature as high as 1700C and are used as industrial heating element.

"Kanthal" is a trade name of the Swedish Company and "Mosilit" is the trade name of the German Company".

There is a letter also dated 15-1-1991 from Deptt. of Electronics, Govt. of India addressed to the appellants which clarifies that Mosilit and Super Kanthal are trade names. The letter states that: "The heating elements by both suppliers are based on a chemical composition of Molybdenum Silicide/Disilicide and are used for high temperature heating in furnaces. As such, since both are based on the same chemical composition, these are covered under concessional rate of customs duty under custom Notification No. 147/86".

It was pleaded before us that both Super Kanthal Heating Elements and the Mosilit Heating Elements are one and the same thing having a chemical composition of Molybdenum Silicide and both function at a temperature as high as 1700C. Both the elements are used for the same application in high temperature furnaces used for the manufacturing of ferrite components. Super Kanthal is a trade name of Swedish Company and Mosilit is a trade name of West German Company. It was contended by them that they have imported the heating elements from West Germany for the reason that these are cheaper in price and the quality is yet the same. Notification No. 31 exempts Super Kanthal Heating Element. There is no dispute about the use of the product. The Collector himself admits that Super Kanthal Heating Elements and Mosilit Heating Elements are technically one and the same. The benefit has, however, been denied on the ground that notification mentioned only Super Kanthal Heating Elements.

5. Once we accept the fact that Super Kanthal and Mosilit Heating Elements refer only to trade name it will follow that the exemption in fact is to heating elements used in ferrite, etc. Exemption cannot be limited or conditioned by a trade name. What is exempted is a heating element for a particular purpose. The authorities specified in the notification have duly certified that what is imported as Mosilit Heating Element is the same as Super Kanthal Heating Element. One of the most important conditions of the notification, that is, recommendatory letter from the authorities specified in the notification has been complied with. Notification cannot be read in a manner as to make it meaningless. We cannot accept the contention that exemption has to be restricted only to a particular trade name. It could not be the intention to exempt a particular trade name and yet deny exemption to exactly same goods with the same composition but bearing another trade name. It is true that exemption has to be a construed strictly but, once the fact of exemption is satisfied, notification has to be given full force. Considering the various certificates issued by statutory authorities and the fact that difference in two products is not one of the substance but only of trade name, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in making out a case in their favour. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial