C.C. Vs. Bright Opticals and Scientific

C.C. vs Bright Opticals and Scientific

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 07, 1998

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/14795

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/14795
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Dec 07, 1998
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

C.C.

Respondent

Bright Opticals and Scientific

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)LC1009Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

.....but noted that in the case before him, the goods had been imported for use with a pace maker.5. under notification no. 30/88-cus., dated 1-3-1988, specified goods falling within chapters 84,85,90 and 98 of the customs tariff were eligible for the concessional rate of duty. the ld. collector of customs had extended the benefit as applicable to light sensitive time switches for street light controls. it is clear from the order of the asstt. collector of customs that the goods were meant for use along with a pace maker. this has also been indicated in the invoice where the goods had been described as electronic items - programmers for pace-makers type ls38 3 x 16 amps 110/220 volts. in the bill of entry, assessable value of rs. 1,00,855/- has been given for 582 pieces weighing 754 kgs.6. from the product description and from the discussion on record, we do not consider that the view taken by the ld. collector that the goods were light sensitive for street light controls was correct.7. after taking into account the relevant facts and considerations, we do not agree with the view taken by the ld. collector of customs (appeals). as a result, both these appeals are allowed. ordered accordingly.

Full Judgment

1. M/s. Bright Opticals & Scientific Instruments Pvt. Ltd. imported programmers for Pace Maker (Time Switches). The goods were classified under Heading No. 91.07 of the Customs Tariff. The goods were cleared out of customs charge. Subsequently, the importers lodged a refund claim on the ground that the goods in question were eligible to the benefit of Notification Nos. 30/88 and 108/99 (sic). By two separate orders, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay allowed the appeals holding that these goods were light-sensitive time-switches used for street lighting. The Revenue in the present appeals had pleaded that there was no dispute that the goods imported were classifiable under Section XI of the Customs Tariff. The appellants have not challenged the classification under Heading No. 91.07 and that the goods classifiable under Chapter 91 were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 30/88-Cus.

2. When the matter was called, none appeared for the respondents. The notice for today's hearing has been issued on 23-11-1998. As the matter is very old, in which the goods were imported in the year 1989, we proceed to deal with the matter on merits after hearing ld. SDR, Shri D.S. Negi.

3. Shri D.S. Negi, SDR referred to the grounds of appeal and submitted that the goods imported were Electronic Items - Programmer for Pace Maker (Time Switches) and were correctly classifiable under Chapter Heading No. 91 of the Customs Tariff. At no stage, the appellants have challenged the classification under Chapter 91 of the Tariff. He referred to the provisions of Notification No. 30/88-Cus. and submitted that only the goods falling under Chapters 84,85,90 or 98 of the Customs Tariff were eligible for the concessional rate of duty.

4. We have carefully considered the matter. The goods imported were electronic items - Programmer for Pace Makers. The appellants had declared the assessable value of Rs. 1,00,855/- for 582 pieces. The goods were described as Programmer for Pace Makers, Time Switches. The Asstt. Collector of Customs had observed that the goods in question were Light Sensitive Time Switches for pace makers, which is a medical instrument/apparatus used for curing heart ailment. He noted that the Time Switches could have various applications but noted that in the case before him, the goods had been imported for use with a Pace Maker.

5. Under Notification No. 30/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988, specified goods falling within Chapters 84,85,90 and 98 of the Customs Tariff were eligible for the concessional rate of duty. The ld. Collector of Customs had extended the benefit as applicable to light sensitive time switches for street light controls. It is clear from the Order of the Asstt. Collector of Customs that the goods were meant for use along with a Pace Maker. This has also been indicated in the Invoice where the goods had been described as Electronic Items - Programmers for Pace-makers Type LS38 3 x 16 Amps 110/220 Volts. In the bill of entry, assessable value of Rs. 1,00,855/- has been given for 582 pieces weighing 754 kgs.

6. From the product description and from the discussion on record, we do not consider that the view taken by the ld. Collector that the goods were light sensitive for street light controls was correct.

7. After taking into account the relevant facts and considerations, we do not agree with the view taken by the ld. Collector of Customs (Appeals). As a result, both these appeals are allowed. Ordered accordingly.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties C.C. vs Bright Opticals and Scientific Same Subject Land Acquisition