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.

Hmt Limited Vs. C.C.

Hmt Limited vs C.C.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Mar 17, 1988
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/4245

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
Customs

Case Summary

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

Customs

Key legal issue
Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hmt Limited

Respondent

C.C.

Legal References

Reported In
(1988)(17)ECC45

Excerpt

1. the appellants m/s. hmt limited claimed, in connection with the import by them of a sound vibration analyzing system, assessment in terms of notification no. 243/78-cus., dated 26.12.1978, claiming that the same fell under serial no. 5 of the table to the notification. the assistant collector as well as the collector (appeals) having rejected the same this appeal has been filed.2. we have heard shri sunil sharma, purchase and liaison officer of the appellants and smt. zutshi for the department.3. for benefit under notification 243/78 the goods, falling under chapter 90 cta, should have been designed for testing purpose in the automotive industry. from the order of the collector it is clear that the subject goods are capable of use in several diverse industries and are not specially designed for use in the automotive industry only. the collector observed that this fact has not been disputed by the appellants. nor has any catalogue etc. been produced before us to controvert this conclusion of the collector. the argument for the appellants is only that they proposed to use this machinery for testing in their tractor unit only and therefore they would qualify for benefit under notification 243/78. as earlier mentioned, benefit under notification would be available only to goods designed for testing purposes in the automotive industry. in so far as the subject goods are not specially designed for the said purpose but appear to be general purpose machine for use in various industries, we hold that the lower authorities rightly rejected the benefit claimed under the notification.

Full Judgment

1. The appellants M/s. HMT Limited claimed, in connection with the import by them of a Sound Vibration Analyzing System, assessment in terms of Notification No. 243/78-Cus., dated 26.12.1978, claiming that the same fell under serial No. 5 of the table to the notification. The Assistant Collector as well as the Collector (Appeals) having rejected the same this appeal has been filed.

2. We have heard Shri Sunil Sharma, Purchase and Liaison Officer of the appellants and Smt. Zutshi for the department.

3. For benefit under Notification 243/78 the goods, falling under Chapter 90 CTA, should have been designed for testing purpose in the automotive industry. From the order of the Collector it is clear that the subject goods are capable of use in several diverse industries and are not specially designed for use in the automotive industry only. The Collector observed that this fact has not been disputed by the appellants. Nor has any catalogue etc. been produced before us to controvert this conclusion of the Collector. The argument for the appellants is only that they proposed to use this machinery for testing in their tractor unit only and therefore they would qualify for benefit under Notification 243/78. As earlier mentioned, benefit under notification would be available only to goods designed for testing purposes in the automotive industry. In so far as the subject goods are not specially designed for the said purpose but appear to be general purpose machine for use in various industries, we hold that the lower authorities rightly rejected the benefit claimed under the notification.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial