Collector of Customs Vs. Nimex Trading Corpn. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. in this appeal filed by the revenue, the matter relates to the benefit of notification no. 188/87-cus., dated 29-4-1987 to the goods imported which were described as "motor running capacitors" (mrc in short). in the invoice, the goods had been referred to as "ducati plastic film capacitors". before the adjudicating authority, the goods were referred as "mrc". the asstt. collector took a view that "mrc" were power capacitors and as power capacitors were excluded for the purpose of exemption under notification no. 188/87-cus., the benefit of that notification was not available to the goods in question. the collector, customs (appeals), bombay relied upon his earlier decision and on the basis of the submission made by the respondents m/s. nimex trading corpn. allowed the appeal.2. the matter was fixed for hearing on 3-3-1998. the notice for today's hearing was sent to the respondents on 23-1-1998 and has been received back undelivered by the postal authorities. as the matter is old - the relevant bill of entry is dated 16-9-1988 - we are proceeding with the appeal on merits after hearing shri r.s. sangia, jdr.3. the adjudicating authority had referred to the isi specification : 1885-1977 wherein different types of power capacitors used in the field of electrical engineering had been defined. the power capacitors had been divided into various heads and motor capacitors were one of them.the mrc has been defined as capacitor which, used in conjunction with an auxiliary winding of the motor, increases the maximum attainable torque during the running condition.4. the adjudicating authority had referred to the submission made by the importers that the capacitor was used for running in of the single phases asynchronous electric motors and that it could not be used in the power system. we consider that the power capacitors were not only those which were usable in the power system and that the motor capacitors were one of the type of power capacitors. again the motor capacitors have been referred to in the is : 2993-1975 wherein it has been referred that the motor capacitors were intended for connection to windings of an asynchronous motor supplied from a single-phase system.the goods as imported were covered by this definition of motor capacitor which is a type of power capacitor.5. under notification no. 188/87-cus., dated 29-4-1987, paper capacitors, power capacitors, medium and high frequency capacitors and disc ceramic capacitors were not eligible for concessional rate of duty under that notification.6. as the appellate authority had set aside the order ot the adjudicating authority on the ground that the motor capacitors were different from the power capacitors and as we find that as per isi specification, the motor capacitors were only a type of power capacitors, we consider that the view taken by him was not correct.7. we have gone through the order-in-original and we find that the correct view has been taken by the adjudicating authority. we restore the order-in-original and set aside the impugned order-in-appeal. as a result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed.

Judgment:
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the benefit of Notification No. 188/87-Cus., dated 29-4-1987 to the goods imported which were described as "Motor Running Capacitors" (MRC in short). In the invoice, the goods had been referred to as "Ducati Plastic Film Capacitors". Before the adjudicating authority, the goods were referred as "MRC". The Asstt. Collector took a view that "MRC" were power capacitors and as power capacitors were excluded for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 188/87-Cus., the benefit of that Notification was not available to the goods in question. The Collector, Customs (Appeals), Bombay relied upon his earlier decision and on the basis of the submission made by the respondents M/s. Nimex Trading Corpn. allowed the appeal.

2. The matter was fixed for hearing on 3-3-1998. The notice for today's hearing was sent to the respondents on 23-1-1998 and has been received back undelivered by the postal authorities. As the matter is old - the relevant Bill of Entry is dated 16-9-1988 - we are proceeding with the appeal on merits after hearing Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR.3. The adjudicating authority had referred to the ISI specification : 1885-1977 wherein different types of power capacitors used in the field of electrical engineering had been defined. The power capacitors had been divided into various heads and motor capacitors were one of them.

The MRC has been defined as capacitor which, used in conjunction with an auxiliary winding of the motor, increases the maximum attainable torque during the running condition.

4. The adjudicating authority had referred to the submission made by the importers that the capacitor was used for running in of the single phases asynchronous electric motors and that it could not be used in the power system. We consider that the power capacitors were not only those which were usable in the power system and that the motor capacitors were one of the type of power capacitors. Again the motor capacitors have been referred to in the IS : 2993-1975 wherein it has been referred that the motor capacitors were intended for connection to windings of an asynchronous motor supplied from a single-phase system.

The goods as imported were covered by this definition of motor capacitor which is a type of power capacitor.

5. Under Notification No. 188/87-Cus., dated 29-4-1987, paper capacitors, power capacitors, medium and high frequency capacitors and disc ceramic capacitors were not eligible for concessional rate of duty under that Notification.

6. As the Appellate Authority had set aside the order ot the adjudicating authority on the ground that the motor capacitors were different from the power capacitors and as we find that as per ISI specification, the motor capacitors were only a type of power capacitors, we consider that the view taken by him was not correct.

7. We have gone through the order-in-original and we find that the correct view has been taken by the adjudicating authority. We restore the order-in-original and set aside the impugned order-in-appeal. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.