Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Cc Acc

Reliance Industries Ltd. vs Cc Acc

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 06, 1999

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/14949

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/14949
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T Gowri, J S Murthy
Decided On: Jan 06, 1999
Subject: Miscellaneous

Case Summary

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

Miscellaneous

Key legal issue: Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Reliance Industries Ltd.

Respondent

Cc Acc

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)(85)LC201Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....classifiable under this heading the notes specify complete fuses with their detonators as falling under heading 93.06. similarly special purpose vehicles permanently equipped with radar or other apparatus of this heading are excluded from the heading. it would therefore be reasonable to conclude that equipment in which radar is used as an aid or tool for the performance of the specific function would be classified, not as a radar apparatus, but by reference to the function for which the radar is employed. applying that principle, it would follow that the goods in question which are specifically designed for measuring the level of liquids rightly classifiable under heading 90.26. this is also made clear by the explanatory notes for that heading at page 1636 indicating level indicators for liquids functioning on ultrasound, to be classifiable under heading 90.26.4. the commissioner has not considered these aspects in coming to the conclusion. he has been exclusively guided by the fact that the radar is employed in the equipment. his reasoning, which was adopted by the departmental representative is not acceptable in view of our earlier discussions. the goods merit classification under heading 90.26 which is also more specific in scope.

Full Judgment

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification either under heading 85.26 or heading 90.26 of the customs tariff of the radar level gauges imported by the appellant. These gauges employ microwaves to measure the level of liquids in tanks. Very briefly the principle employed is that electromagnetic waves are sent from the unit which is mounted on to the vessel or the storage tank, which are reflected by the surface of the stored liquid. The time taken for the waves to travel from the gauge to the liquid surface and back which is measured, is the basis for the measurement of liquid volume. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has held this item to be classified under heading 85.26 both for the purpose of levy of duty and for the purpose of importability, since the import of policy on the relevant date was aligned with the Customs Tariff.

2. Heading 85.26 reads: "Radar apparatus, radio navigational aid apparatus, radio remote control apparatus". The heading comprises two sub-headings. Subheading 8526.90 is for radio apparatus, 8526.91 for radio navigational aid apparatus and 8526.92 for radio remote control apparatus. This heading and the subheadings in the Customs Tariff are identical in terminology with the heading and sub-heading in the HSN Explanatory Notes. Reference to notes is hence justified in determining the scope and applicability of the headings and sub-headings. The explanatory notes Second Edition (1996) specify twelve types of apparatus or equipments as being included in this heading. Will the existence of radar height measuring apparatus (radio altimeters) these goods are, essentially radar equipment simpliciter employing the principle of radar either to locate the position of the aircraft or ship or identify buoys, beacons or aircraft or to measure the height of aircraft or other similar objects.

3. A reading of the explanatory notes makes it clear that mere employment of radar in an equipment or apparatus is not enough to justify classification of that equipment or apparatus in this heading.

Thus while radar devices in proximity fuses or bombs are classifiable under this heading the notes specify complete fuses with their detonators as falling under heading 93.06. Similarly special purpose vehicles permanently equipped with radar or other apparatus of this heading are excluded from the heading. It would therefore be reasonable to conclude that equipment in which radar is used as an aid or tool for the performance of the specific function would be classified, not as a radar apparatus, but by reference to the function for which the radar is employed. Applying that principle, it would follow that the goods in question which are specifically designed for measuring the level of liquids rightly classifiable under heading 90.26. This is also made clear by the explanatory notes for that heading at page 1636 indicating level indicators for liquids functioning on ultrasound, to be classifiable under heading 90.26.

4. The Commissioner has not considered these aspects in coming to the conclusion. He has been exclusively guided by the fact that the radar is employed in the equipment. His reasoning, which was adopted by the departmental representative is not acceptable in view of our earlier discussions. The goods merit classification under heading 90.26 which is also more specific in scope.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Reliance Industries Ltd. vs Cc Acc Same Subject Miscellaneous Same Judge S T Gowri, J S Murthy