Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Airport

Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs, Airport

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Nov 06, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/32957

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/32957
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T Gowri, K Kumar
Decided On: Nov 06, 2003
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bajaj Auto Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs, Airport

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(167)ELT69Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....or against the public notice issued in that regard. the public notice 32 (pn)92-97 dated 17.7.1992 issued by the chief control of imports and exports permitted import of accessories, components, parts and spares of consumer durables, except those specifically included in the list of imports by a manufacturer of such durables without a licence, such imports being subjected to the actual user condition and transfer would be permissible. he says that the appellant, being a manufacturer of scooters which are consumables has specified conditions. he relies upon the decision of the tribunal in cc vs. maruti udyog ltd 1997 (72) ecr 948 in which, after considering the contents of the public notice, the tribunal has held parts of motorvehicles to be eligible for import by a manfacturer of such motorvehicles.3. the departmental representative relies upon the decisions of this tribunal in prahlad singh chadha v. cc 1996 (88) elt 200 and in rajnath motors (p) ltd v. cc 4. we do not find these have any relavance to the issue before us. in prahlad singh chadha v. cc 1996 (88) elt 200, the bench of the tribunal held inter alia that car tyres, being finished products capable of directly satisfying human needs without further process would be consumer goods within the meaning of paragraph 156 of the policy. in rajnath motors (p) ltd v. cc 2000 (118) elt 598 a bench of this tribunal held inter alia that some of the tyres imported by the appellant before it were entitled for fitment to motorcars and therefore were consumer goods. neither of these decisions has any argument recorded about the eligibility for import of such goods in terms of the public notice in question.5. on the other hand, the decision in cc v. maruti udyog ltd has specifically applied the public notice to parts of motorvehicles. the ratio of that decision therefore will apply to the tyres under consideration by us. the import of tyres therefore is permissible.

Full Judgment

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the tires imported by the appellant is entitled to fitment to the scooters manufactured by it could be imported without a licence. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmd the finding of the Deputy Collector that these tyres were consumer goods and therefore, as provided in paragraph 156A of the import policy, could not have been imported without a licence and are therefore liable to confiscation under Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act.

2. The counsel for the appellant does not deny on the basis of the decisions of this Tribunal that tyres are to be regarded as consumer goods. He says that paragraph 156A permitted import of consumer goods under a licence or against the public notice issued in that regard. The public notice 32 (PN)92-97 dated 17.7.1992 issued by the Chief Control of Imports and Exports permitted import Of accessories, components, parts and spares of consumer durables, except those specifically included in the list of imports by a manufacturer of such durables without a licence, such imports being subjected to the actual user condition and transfer would be permissible. He says that the appellant, being a manufacturer of scooters which are consumables has specified conditions. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in CC vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd 1997 (72) ECR 948 in which, after considering the contents of the public notice, the Tribunal has held parts of motorvehicles to be eligible for import by a manfacturer of such motorvehicles.

3. The departmental representative relies upon the decisions of this Tribunal in Prahlad Singh Chadha v. CC 1996 (88) ELT 200 and in Rajnath Motors (P) Ltd v. CC 4. We do not find these have any relavance to the issue before us. In Prahlad Singh Chadha v. CC 1996 (88) ELT 200, the bench of the Tribunal held inter alia that car tyres, being finished products capable of directly satisfying human needs without further process would be consumer goods within the meaning of paragraph 156 of the policy. In Rajnath Motors (P) Ltd v. CC 2000 (118) ELT 598 a bench of this Tribunal held inter alia that some of the tyres imported by the appellant before it were entitled for fitment to motorcars and therefore were consumer goods. Neither of these decisions has any argument recorded about the eligibility for import of such goods in terms of the public notice in question.

5. On the other hand, the decision in CC v. Maruti Udyog Ltd has specifically applied the public notice to parts of motorvehicles. The ratio of that decision therefore will apply to the tyres under consideration by us. The import of tyres therefore is permissible.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs, Airport Same Subject MRTP Same Judge S T Gowri, K Kumar