Full Judgment
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that voltas Limited had imported Piano Type Switches vide Bill of Entry Cash No. 937 dated 9-10-1980.
The same were assessed to duty under Heading 84.18/27(1) and the C.V.Duty had been levied under Tariff Item 29A(3) of Central Excise Tariff, whereas the respondent had claimed that the CV Duty had to be levied under Tariff Item 68. The Ld. Assistant Collector had rejected the claim of the respondent for the levy of CV Duty under Tariff Item 68.
Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order respondent had filed an appeal to the Appellate Collector of Customs. The Learned Appellate Collector of Customs had accepted the claim of the respondent and had held that the CV Duty was chargeable under Tariff Item 68 of the CET on the ground that these switches are ordinary make and break switches and Tariff Item 29A(3) was not applicable. The Central Government being not satisfied with the order passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, had initiated the review proceedings which is an appeal before us.
3. Shri J. Gopinath, Ld. SDR, has appeared on behalf of the appellant.
He has reiterated the contentions made in the review show cause notice.
Shri Gopinath has pleaded that benefit of the notification issued under Rule 8(1) of Central Excise Rules is not applicable to the Customs matters in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Kar-nataka High Court in the case of 5.5. Kamath & Co. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
reported in 1986 (24) ELT 456. Shri Gopinath states that the order passed by the Assistant Collector was correct in law and the imported Piano Type Switches are specially designed and are to be used in the air-conditioners and the same are to be assessed under Tariff Item 29A(3) of CET. He states that Tariff Item 68 is not applicable in this case. He has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal.
4. Shri M.N. Jha, Ld. Advocate, who has appeared for the respondent has argued that the switches imported by the respondent are ordinary type switches and the same can be used for any other purpose. In support of his argument, he has drawn attention of the Bench to circuit diagram which appears on page 16 of the paper book and states that a simple perusal of the diagram shows that the Piano Switch consists of 4 types of switches. He states that it is just an ordinary switch which can be used for any other purpose and in the latest technology which is being applied for manufacture of air-conditioners all the switches have been dispensed with. He further states that this type of switch has been fitted to an air-conditioner keeping in view the prevalent conditions in India. He has also referred to his written argument which appears on pages 21 and 22 of the paper book. He states that CV Duty is leviable under Tariff Item 68 of the CET and not under Tariff Item 29A(3) of the CET. He has pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal.
5. Shri J. Gopinath, Ld. SDR, in reply, has referred to another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dunlop India and Ors. v. Union of India reported in 1983 ELT 1566 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that chargeable event for the Customs Duty is importation and we have to go by the conditions in which it is imported. He has also argued that trade parlance is also important.
6. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The Piano Type Switches imported by the respondent are specially meant for air-conditioners and we hold that the Appellate Collector was not correct in reversing the order passed by the Assistant Collector. We hold that the CV Duty is leviable under Tariff Item 29A(3) of the Central Excise Tariff. In the result we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.