Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Electronics Consortium Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Electronics Consortium Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 25, 1987
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/3977

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
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

Electronics Consortium Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Collector of Customs

Legal References

Reported In
(1989)(42)ELT252TriDel

Excerpt

.....with radio; the invoice described the goods as tape deck mechanisms and plastic moulded components (top, bottom, battery lid, cassette lid).4. notification no. 228/76-cus. exempts only goods falling under chapter 39.07. these goods do not fall and were assessed not under chapter 39 but under chapter 92. in a choice between chapter 39 and chapter 92, there can be little dispute that chapter 92 is more specific. chapter 39 might be a very appropriate heading if the articles, component parts of cassette tape recorders did not have a more specific heading under chapter 92.01/13. being articles made of plastic does not scan that they cannot be component parts of articles to become more specific under other headings. in this case, even if these component parts of tape recorders are made of plastic, they have travelled beyond this general heading of articles of plastic to a more specialised heading of component parts of tape recorders/radios.therefore, the specific heading will command preference over the general heading; heading 92.01/13 as the more specific head was the correct assessment.5. in their appeal the importers say that there was a tariff advice issued by the central board of excise and customs to the effect that plastic cabinets for tape recorders, radios etc. even if fitted with some metallic components are liable to duty under tariff item 15a(2) cet. the details of the tariff advice have not been given by the appellants, but it must be recorded that item 15a(2) of the central excise tariff is not inappropriate if the goods cannot find more specific items in the same tariff. this is true of chapter 39 of the customs tariff also. but in this case when a more specific heading is available, chapter 39 will have to take second or third place.

Full Judgment

1. When the appeal was called, the assessees, M/s. Electronics Consortium, did not appear . We accordingly heard the SDR.2. The SDR said that the goods were declared as component parts of cassette tape recorders and had been assessed as such parts. The importers want assessment for countervailing duty as articles of plastic with exemption under Notification No. 228/76-Cus. He said this is not permissible, because even though the goods may be made of plastic, they are parts of tape recorders, tape deck mechanism. The assessment, therefore, is correct and there is no case for refunding the duty.

3. The importers imported a consignment of 32 cases containing 2400 sets of tape deck mechanism and 2400 sets of plastic moulded components, from Japan, which were assessed under heading 92.01/13 plus countervailing duty under Item 68, Central Excise Tariff. They claimed refund of Rs. 8,477/- representing the countervailing duty on the ground that under Notification 228/76-Cus. countervailing duty was not chargeable on the goods. The claim is incorrect, because though the tape deck mechanisms and plastic moulded components may be made of plastic, they are all assessable on their merits, in the shape in which they were imported into India. The importers themselves declared the goods in the bill of entry as component parts of cassette tape recorder and combination thereof with radio; the invoice described the goods as tape deck mechanisms and plastic moulded components (top, bottom, battery lid, cassette lid).

4. Notification No. 228/76-Cus. exempts only goods falling under Chapter 39.07. These goods do not fall and were assessed not under Chapter 39 but under Chapter 92. In a choice between Chapter 39 and Chapter 92, there can be little dispute that Chapter 92 is more specific. Chapter 39 might be a very appropriate heading if the articles, component parts of cassette tape recorders did not have a more specific heading under Chapter 92.01/13. Being articles made of plastic does not scan that they cannot be component parts of articles to become more specific under other headings. In this case, even if these component parts of tape recorders are made of plastic, they have travelled beyond this general heading of articles of plastic to a more specialised heading of component parts of tape recorders/radios.

Therefore, the specific heading will command preference over the general heading; heading 92.01/13 as the more specific head was the correct assessment.

5. In their appeal the importers say that there was a tariff advice issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs to the effect that Plastic cabinets for tape recorders, radios etc. even if fitted with some metallic components are liable to duty under Tariff Item 15A(2) CET. The details of the tariff advice have not been given by the appellants, but it must be recorded that Item 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff is not inappropriate if the goods cannot find more specific items in the same tariff. This is true of Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff also. But in this case when a more specific heading is available, Chapter 39 will have to take second or third place.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial