Electronics Industries of India Vs. Collector of Cus. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. in all these appeals common question of law and facts are involved, hence they are all taken up together for disposal as per law.2. the appellants imported the goods which is described in the bill of entry as "d.c. micro motors for use in tape deck mechanism type mmi-6s2re" and claimed the benefit of the notification no. 62/88-cus.the department did not raise any objection with regard to the claim under heading 8501.31 of cta. however, the benefit of notification has been denied by both the authorities. the invoice in respect of the imported goods described the same as "d.c. micromotors for use in tape deck mechanism type mmi-6s2re". to prove the utility of the imported items in the manufacture of tape deck mechanism, the appellants had produced the end use certificate issued by the superintendent of central excise. however, the authorities were dissatisfied with the same and held that they ought to have produced the literature/catalogue to show that the impugned goods are "exclusively designed for use in tape deck mechanism". "85.01/03-stepper motors/parts/d.c. micromotors : b.35%/rs. 13 each. 62/88-cus., dated 1-3-1988, as amended by 92/89-cus., dated 1-3-1989; in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the customs act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and in supersession of the notification of the government of india in the ministry of finance (department of revenue) no. 465/86-customs, dated the 21st november, 1986, the central government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods specified in column (3) of the table hereto annexed and falling under heading nos. of the first schedule to the customs tariff act, 1975 (51 of 1975) specified in the corresponding column (2) of the said table, when imported into india, from so much of that portion of duty of customs leviable thereon, which is specified in the said first schedule, as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the said table.----------------------------------------------------------------s. heading no. of description of goods rateno. the first schedule----------------------------------------------------------------(1) (2) (3) (4)----------------------------------------------------------------1. 85.01 stepper motors for clocks/alarm 35 per cent ad clocks valorem2. 85.01 d.c. micromotors of voltage rs.13/-per piece rating not exceeding 13.5 volts of micromotors output not exceeding 20 volts2a. 85.01 d.c. micromotors of voltage 35 percent ad rating not exceeding 13.5 volts valorem3. 85.03 parts of goods covered by s.no. 1.35percent ad above valorem" 4. we have heard both the sides and have considered the submissions made by them.5. the short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned goods satisfies the terms of the notification inasmuch as that they are d.c. micromotors of voltage rating not exceeding 13.5 volts and output not exceeding 20 watts. the department does not dispute about the satisfaction of these terms. the only ground on which the lower authorities have rejected this benefit is that they have not substantiated that it is 'exclusively' designed for use in tape deck mechanism. it is noticed that no such terms or words and expressions are used in the notification. the authorities cannot add or subtract the words from the notification for the purpose of interpreting the same. the terms of the notification ought to be strictly construed. the fact of utility of these items for the final manufacture of the goods, tape deck mechanism is not in dispute. the s. no. 2 of the notification restricts itself for audio cassette recorder and player. all those which did not fall in s. nos. 1 and 2 of the notification would fall under s. no. 2a of the notification. we do not see any reason for denying the benefit and therefore, accepting the plea of the appellants, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any.

Judgment:
1. In all these appeals common question of law and facts are involved, hence they are all taken up together for disposal as per law.

2. The appellants imported the goods which is described in the Bill of Entry as "D.C. Micro Motors for use in Tape Deck Mechanism Type MMI-6S2RE" and claimed the benefit of the Notification No. 62/88-Cus.

The department did not raise any objection with regard to the claim under Heading 8501.31 of CTA. However, the benefit of notification has been denied by both the authorities. The invoice in respect of the imported goods described the same as "D.C. Micromotors for use in tape deck mechanism type MMI-6S2RE". To prove the utility of the imported items in the manufacture of tape deck mechanism, the appellants had produced the end use certificate issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise. However, the authorities were dissatisfied with the same and held that they ought to have produced the literature/catalogue to show that the impugned goods are "exclusively designed for use in tape deck mechanism".

"85.01/03-Stepper Motors/Parts/D.C. Micromotors : B.35%/Rs. 13 each.

62/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988, as amended by 92/89-Cus., dated 1-3-1989; in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 465/86-Customs, dated the 21st November, 1986, the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods specified in column (3) of the Table hereto annexed and falling under Heading Nos. of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) specified in the corresponding column (2) of the said Table, when imported into India, from so much of that portion of duty of Customs leviable thereon, which is specified in the said First Schedule, as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the said Table.----------------------------------------------------------------S. Heading No. of Description of goods RateNo. the First Schedule----------------------------------------------------------------(1) (2) (3) (4)----------------------------------------------------------------1.

85.01 Stepper Motors for clocks/alarm 35 per cent ad clocks valorem2.

85.01 D.C. Micromotors of voltage Rs.13/-per piece rating not exceeding 13.5 volts of Micromotors output not exceeding 20 volts2A. 85.01 D.C. Micromotors of voltage 35 percent ad rating not exceeding 13.5 volts valorem3.

85.03 Parts of goods covered by S.No. 1.35percent ad above valorem" 4. We have heard both the sides and have considered the submissions made by them.

5. The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned goods satisfies the terms of the notification inasmuch as that they are D.C. Micromotors of voltage rating not exceeding 13.5 volts and output not exceeding 20 watts. The department does not dispute about the satisfaction of these terms. The only ground on which the lower authorities have rejected this benefit is that they have not substantiated that it is 'exclusively' designed for use in tape deck mechanism. It is noticed that no such terms or words and expressions are used in the notification. The authorities cannot add or subtract the words from the notification for the purpose of interpreting the same. The terms of the notification ought to be strictly construed. The fact of utility of these items for the final manufacture of the goods, tape deck mechanism is not in dispute. The S. No. 2 of the notification restricts itself for audio cassette recorder and player. All those which did not fall in S. Nos. 1 and 2 of the notification would fall under S. No. 2A of the notification. We do not see any reason for denying the benefit and therefore, accepting the plea of the appellants, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any.