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.

Andhra Sugar Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Andhra Sugar Ltd. vs Collector of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 25, 1988
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/4684

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
Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Andhra Sugar Ltd.

Respondent

Collector of Customs

Legal References

Reported In
(1989)(19)ECC316

Excerpt

.....nair, sdr on behalf of the department.5. it is submitted on behalf of the appellants that beckman instruments and such parts thereof which are solely designed for use therewith, and having no alternative uses, are correctly classifiable under heading 90.25(1) and not under heading 90.28 as ordered by the lower authority.the reason given is that beckman instrument is designed only for chemical analysis of industrial raw materials and use for analytical work in chemical laboratories. it is stated that it is not an instrument designed or capable of measuring, checking, analysing or controlling any electrical factor.6. we have seen the catalogue pertaining to the products filed by the appellants. the contention of the appellants that since beckman instrument "is not an instrument designed or capable of measuring, checking, analysing or controlling any electrical factor" and since it is designed for chemical analysis and used for analytical work in chemical laboratories, therefore, it would not fall under heading 90.28 is based on incorrect interpretation of the tariff. heading 90.28 covers electrical instruments as against heading 90.25 mhfch covers other than electrical instruments. the electrical counterparts for non-electrical instruments as specified would fall under heading 9028.thus heading 9028 would cover electrical analysers.7. as has been rightly pointed out in the orders of the collector (appeals), ph meters are specifically mentioned under heading 90.28.hence there can be no doubt about the correct classification.8. in view of the foregoing, we see no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. This is a Revision Application filed under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 against order-in-appeal passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras. On the setting up of this Tribunal, this has been transferred here and is being treated as an appeal before us.

2. Appellants have imported certain items, broadly described as "spares for Be-ckman Instruments". They claimed that the goods, being parts of the photometer, were assessable under Heading 90.25 of Customs Tariff.

The Custom House took a view that Beckman instruments, being electrical, would fall under Heading 90.28(4). The parts, being printed circuits, complete with electronic components such as thermionic valves and transistors, were held to be classifiable under Heading 90.29(2).

The resistances which were imported by appellants held to be classifiable under Heading 85.18/27(1).

3. When the appellant went up in appeal, the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras held that except for one item, namely, resistance, the rest of the goods were correctly classifiable under Heading 90.28(1).

So far as resistance is concerned, it was held to be classifiable under Heading 85.18/27(1).

4. We have heard Shri B. P. Rao, Manager on behalf of the appellants and Shri A.S.R. Nair, SDR on behalf of the department.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that Beckman instruments and such parts thereof which are solely designed for use therewith, and having no alternative uses, are correctly classifiable under Heading 90.25(1) and not under Heading 90.28 as ordered by the lower authority.

The reason given is that Beckman instrument is designed only for chemical analysis of industrial raw materials and use for analytical work in chemical laboratories. It is stated that it is not an instrument designed or capable of measuring, checking, analysing or controlling any electrical factor.

6. We have seen the catalogue pertaining to the products filed by the appellants. The contention of the appellants that since Beckman instrument "is not an instrument designed or capable of measuring, checking, analysing or controlling any electrical factor" and since it is designed for chemical analysis and used for analytical work in chemical laboratories, therefore, it would not fall under Heading 90.28 is based on incorrect interpretation of the Tariff. Heading 90.28 covers electrical instruments as against Heading 90.25 mhfch covers other than electrical instruments. The electrical counterparts for non-electrical instruments as specified would fall under Heading 9028.

Thus Heading 9028 would cover electrical analysers.

7. As has been rightly pointed out in the orders of the Collector (Appeals), PH meters are specifically mentioned under Heading 90.28.

Hence there can be no doubt about the correct classification.

8. In view of the foregoing, we see no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial