JaIn Engineering Co. Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay and Others

JaIn Engineering Co. vs Collector of Customs, Bombay and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Sep 18, 1987

~9 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/654205

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/654205
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: Murali Mohan Dutt and; Ranganath Mishra, JJ.
Decided On: Sep 18, 1987
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 335 of 1987
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

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

Customs - exemption - notification issued granting part exemption from payment of customs duty in respect of rod bushes and camshaft bushes imported by appellant - respondents denied exemption to appellant on ground that articles imported by appellant falls under heading different from heading mentioned in notificat...

Key legal issue: Customs
Acts & sections: Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 130E

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

JaIn Engineering Co.

Respondent

Collector of Customs, Bombay and Others

Legal References

Acts: Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 130E
Reported In: AIR1987SC2279; 1987(14)ECC141; 1987(32)ELT3(SC); JT1987(3)SC596; 1987(2)SCALE584; (1987)4SCC492; [1988]1SCR220; 1988(1)LC163(SC)

Excerpt

.....exemption - notification issued granting part exemption from payment of customs duty in respect of rod bushes and camshaft bushes imported by appellant - respondents denied exemption to appellant on ground that articles imported by appellant falls under heading different from heading mentioned in notification - heading under notification refers to 'internal combustion, piston engines and parts thereof' - in order to avail benefit of exemption it has to be proved that parts in respect of which exemption claimed are parts of internal combustion as mentioned in heading - in absence of contrary provision it cannot be said that parts of engines including in heading other than heading in notification excluded from benefit of notification - appellant entitled to exemption. - indian penal code, 1890 section 34: [dr. arijit pasayat & mukundakam sharma, jj] common intention held, section 34 has been enacted on the principle of joint liability in the commission of a criminal act. the section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive under the provisions of section 34 the essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the commission of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. as a result of the application of principles enunciated in section 34, when an accused is convicted under section 302 read with section 34, in law it means that the accused is liable for the act which caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. the provision is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them.sections 302 & 34: murder-common intention- during assault, a-6 dealt an axe blow on the head of the deceased - as a result, the deceased sustained bleeding injury and fell down - when pw 3 and 10..........piston engines, the appellant is not entitled to claim any exemption for the bushes, even if they are parts of such engines. secondly, it is contended by him that even assuming that heading no. 84.06 also contemplates parts of the engine, such parts must be all the parts of the engine and not a few parts thereof. in other words, his contention is that heading no. 84.06 will apply when an internal combustion piston engine is imported in a knocked down condition. lastly, it is contended that bushes and bearings are the same and identical articles as held by the appellate tribunal and, as bearings have been provided for under heading no. 84.63, the question of any exemption under the notification does not arise. it is also submitted by the learned additional solicitor general that even assuming that the bushes and bearings are not identical articles but they are distinct and separate, yet there is no material for holding that the bushes, which have been imported by the appellant, are parts of the engines referred to in heading no. 84.06.6. the notification provides that the articles specified in column (2) of the table and falling under heading no. 84.06 are exempt from payment of a certain portion of the customs duty. paragraph 2 of column (2) of the table not only mentions internal combustion piston engines, undoubtedly forming the only subject-matter of heading no. 84.06, but it also mentions the 'parts thereof, that is to say, parts of such engines. heading no. 84.06 does not refer to 'parts' of such engines, non-mention of 'parts' in heading no. 84. 06 has given rise to a controversy between the parties. it may be that the notification has been inartistically drafted. it is, however, clear that the notification not only intends to grant exemption to internal combustion piston engines, but also to parts thereof. when therefore, the intention is clear and manifest, it will be unreasonable to take a narrow view of the notification and not to extend its benefit.....

Full Judgment

Morari Mohan Dutt, J.

1. The only question that is involved in this appeal preferred under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962, is whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 281-Cus/76, granting part exemption from payment of Customs duty in respect of the rod bushes and camshaft bushes imported by the appellant.

2. Before we refer to the said Notification, we may notice the provisions of the Heading No. 84.06 and Heading No. 84.63 of the Customs Tariff Act, which are as follows:-

_____________________________________________________________ Heading Sub-heading No. and Rate of duty Central No. description of (a) Standard Excise article (b) Preferential areas Item _____________________________________________________________ 34.06 Internal combustion (a) 100% 29 piston engines. 84.63 Transmission (a) 60% shafts, cranks, bearing housings, plan shaft bearings, gears and gearing (including friction gears and gear-boxes & other variable speed gears), flywheels, pulleys and pulley block, clutches and shaft couplings. (1) Not elsewhere (a) 60% specified. () Plan shaft (a) 100% bearings with or without bearing housing. ________________________________________________________________

The said Notification No. 281-Cus dated 2-8-1976, as amended from time to time reads as follows:-

'Notfn. No. 281-Cus.-The articles specified in column (2) of the Table hereto annexed and falling under Heading No. 84.06 are exempt from so much of that portion of the duty of Customs leviable thereon which is specified in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as is in excess of the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table.

THE TABLE

_____________________________________________________ Description of Rate of duty article (2) (3) _____________________________________________________ Stationary or industrial internal 40 per cent. combustion piston engines ad valorem. and parts thereof excluding those which are inter-changeable for use with motor vehicle other than those specified against S. No. 2. Internal combustion piston engines 40 per cent. for industrial and agricultural ad valorem. tractors and power tillers and parts thereof excluding those which are inter-changeable for use with other motor vehicles. Marine engines and parts thereof 40 per cent. excluding those which are inter- ad valorem. changeable for use with motor vehicles other than those specified against Sl. No. 2. Internal combustion piston engines 3 percent. designed for use in aero planes and ad valorem. parts of such engines. Internal combustion piston engines 40 per cent. for locomotives and parts thereof ad valorem. excluding those which are inter- changeable for use with motor vehicles others than those specified against Sl. No. 2. _____________________________________________________

3. The Assistant Collectors and the Collector of Customs (Judicial) overruled the contention of the appellant that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of exemption under the Notification No. 281-Cus/76. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellant Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the Appellant Tribunal' dismissed the appeal of the appellant and affirmed the orders of the Customs Authorities. According to the Appellate Tribunal, the bushings and the bearings are the same and as the bearings come under the Heading No. 84.63 and not under Heading No. 84.06, they are not entitled to the benefit of exemption under the said Notification. Hence this appeal under Section 130E of the Customs Act.

4. The Notification grants exemption in part from payment of the Customs duty in respect of articles specified in column (2) of the Table and falling under Heading No. 84.06. Heading No. 84.06 refers to 'Internal combustion piston engines'. Paragraph 2 of column (2) of the Table annexed to the Notification, which is relevant for our purpose, not only refers to internal combustion piston engines, but also to 'parts thereof . Heading No. 84.06 does not, however, contain or refer to the parts of internal combustion piston engines.

5. It is submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General that as Heading No. 84.06 does not refer to the parts of internal combustion piston engines, the appellant is not entitled to claim any exemption for the bushes, even if they are parts of such engines. Secondly, it is contended by him that even assuming that Heading No. 84.06 also contemplates parts of the engine, such parts must be all the parts of the engine and not a few parts thereof. In other words, his contention is that Heading No. 84.06 will apply when an internal combustion piston engine is imported in a knocked down condition. Lastly, it is contended that bushes and bearings are the same and identical articles as held by the Appellate Tribunal and, as bearings have been provided for under Heading No. 84.63, the question of any exemption under the Notification does not arise. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General that even assuming that the bushes and bearings are not identical articles but they are distinct and separate, yet there is no material for holding that the bushes, which have been imported by the appellant, are parts of the engines referred to in Heading No. 84.06.

6. The notification provides that the articles specified in column (2) of the Table and falling under Heading No. 84.06 are exempt from payment of a certain portion of the customs duty. Paragraph 2 of column (2) of the Table not only mentions internal combustion piston engines, undoubtedly forming the only subject-matter of Heading No. 84.06, but it also mentions the 'parts thereof, that is to say, parts of such engines. Heading No. 84.06 does not refer to 'parts' of such engines, Non-mention of 'parts' in Heading No. 84. 06 has given rise to a controversy between the parties. It may be that the Notification has been inartistically drafted. It is, however, clear that the Notification not only intends to grant exemption to internal combustion piston engines, but also to parts thereof. When therefore, the intention is clear and manifest, it will be unreasonable to take a narrow view of the Notification and not to extend its benefit to the parts of the engines referred to in Heading No. 84.06. To accept the contention on behalf of the respondents that as Heading No. 84.06 does not mention 'the parts' the Notification is inapplicable to the parts, will be to amend the Notification, which the court will not do. In our opinion, therefore, the Notification will apply to parts of the engines mentioned under Heading No. 84.06.

7. We are unable to accept the contention of the respondents that the parts' referred to in paragraph 2 of column (2) of the Table must be all the parts of the engines or engine in question and not a few parts thereof. Paragraph 2 of column (2) does not provide that it must be all the parts of the engine or engines. It simply provides 'parts thereof'. In the absence of any clear and unambiguous provision that exemption will be granted in respect of parts of the engines which must be all the parts constituting the engine or engines, we are not inclined to restrict the scope of the Notification. Accordingly, we hold that 'parts' referred to in paragraph 2 of column (2) of the table may be all the parts or any or some of the parts of the engine or engines in question. A mention of internal combustion piston engines under Heading No. 84.06 not only contemplates the engine or engines, but also the parts thereof. So, although the parts are not mentioned under Heading No. 84.06, by necessary implication and in the context of the Notification, it includes the parts of the engine. We are, therefore, of the view that parts of the engine or engines, mentioned under Heading No. 84.06, will get the benefit of exemption under the Notification.

8. It has been held by the Appellate Tribunal and it is also the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General that bushings and bearings are identical articles. It seem that the Appellate Tribunal was influenced by the fact that the functions of the bushings and bearings are the same. It may be that two articles have the same functions but nonetheless, they are distinct and separate. As the functions of bushing are the same as that of the bearings, sometimes bushings are also called bearings, as pointed out by the Appellate Tribunal. But when these two articles are known in the market by two different names, it is difficult to uphold the contention that they are same and identical, even though they perform the same functions. We, therefore, do not agree with the finding of the Appellate Tribunal and the Customs authorities that bushings and bearings are same and identical.

9. In view of our finding that the Notification exempts also parts of the engines mentioned in paragraph 2 of column (2) of the Table, in order to avail of the benefit of the exemption granted by the Notification, it has to be proved that the parts in respect of which the exemption is claimed, are part? of the internal combustion piston engine, as mentioned under Heading No. 84.06. Some of such parts may have been included under Heading No. 84.63. In other words as soon as it is proved that the parts are of the engines, mentioned in heading No. 84.06, such parts will get the benefit of exemption as provided by the Notification, irrespective of the fact that they or any or some of them have already been included under Heading No. 84.63 or under any other Heading. Therefore, even if bushings are the same as bearings, still they would come within the purview of the Notification provided they are parts of the engines mentioned under Heading No. 84.06. The contention of the Customs Authorities that the article, which is provided under another Heading other than Heading No. 84.06, will not get the exemption as provided in the Notification is not readily understandable. When the Notification grants exemption to the parts of the engines, as mentioned under Heading No. 84.06, we find no reason to exclude any of such parts simply because it is included under another Heading. The intention of the Notification is clear enough to provide that the parts of the engines, mentioned under Heading No. 84.06, will get the exemption under the Notification and in the absence of any provision to the contrary, we are unable to hold that the parts of the engines, which are included under a Heading other than Heading No. 84.06, excluded from the benefit of the Notification.

10 In the instant case, there is no material or evidence nor is there any finding of the Appellate Tribunal or the Customs Authorities that the bushes, which have been imported by the appellant, are parts of internal combustion piston engines falling under Heading No. 84.06. In the circumstances, it is necessary that the Customs Authorities should embark upon the question and decide whether the bushes, imported by the appellant are really parts of such engines.

11. For the reason aforesaid, we set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal and of the Customs Authorities and send the case back to the Collector of Customs with a direction to decide after giving an opportunity to the appellant, whether the bushes imported by the appellant are parts of the internal combustion piston engines, as mentioned under Heading No. 84.06.

12. The appeal is allowed, but in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 1987 Same Parties JaIn Engineering Co. vs Collector of Customs, Bombay and Others Same Subject Customs Same Judge Murali Mohan Dutt and; Ranganath Mishra, JJ. Acts & Sections Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 130E

Customs