Full Judgment
only covered Network Analyser. As the goods were a combination of Spectrum Analyser and Network Analyser, they were not covered by either of the two exemption notifications. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) set aside the said order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs and observed that as the effective rate of customs duty under both the notifications was 25% ad valorem, they were eligible for the benefit under either of the two notifications. He did not specify as under which notification, the benefit was required to be extended to the goods in question.
2. The matter was fixed for hearing on 3-6-1998. Shri S.N. ojha, ld.Departmental Representative is present for the appellant Revenue. No one is present for the respondent. It is seen that at no stage, the respondent was present in these proceedings. The notices sent on the address as per records have been received back with the remarks "left".
As the matter is old in which the goods were imported in the year 1994, we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri S.N. Ojha, ld. DR.3. We have carefully gone through the facts on record, the relevant exemption Notifications and the submissions made by the appellant Revenue.
4. There is no dispute that the goods imported were neither Networks Analyser nor Spectrum Analyser were integrated network and spectrum analyser and had been imported with their accessories.
5. Notification No. 104/90-Cus dated 20-3-1990 as amended provided concessional rate of customs duty, among others, to Spectrum Analyser.
Notification No. 95/91-Cus dated 25-7-1991 (as amended) provided for the concessional rate of customs duty to the specified goods which were used in the electronic industry. At S. No. 139 of the Table annexed to that notification, Network Analyser was one of the items which attracted concessional rate of customs duty. The goods imported were integrated products and in the form imported, they were neither Network Analyser alone nor Spectrum Analyser only.
6. The exemption notifications have to be construed strictly. It has so happened in this case that the concessional rate of customs duty for both the Network Analyser and Spectrum Analyser was the same i.e. 25% ad valorem but the goods had to be assessed on the basis of their description and coverage under the notification. The rate of duty could be varied from product-to-product. Ld. Collector of Customs (Appeals) had not indicated under which notification the goods should be assessed to duty. In case where the concessional rate of duty is different than for the goods as covered by any specific notification, the logic taken by the ld. appellant authority could not be applied.
7. The goods had to be assessed to duty in the form presented for assessment. We find that at the time of clearance, the benefit of Notification No. 79/93-Cus dated 28-3-1993 have already been extended.
In this notification, there was no such separate mention of network analyser of spectrum analyser. The instrument or apparatus for measuring or checking electrical quantities which were classifiable under Chapter 90 of the Customs Tariff, were eligible for the benefit which have already been extended in this case.
8. As in the form the goods were imported they were neither covered under Notification No. 104/90-Cus. nor Notification No. 96/91-Cus., we consider that the view taken by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was not correct.
9. Taking all the relevant facts and consideration of the case, we set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and restore the Order-in-Original.
As a result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.