1996(12)LCX0138

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

S/Shri S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)

S.P.I.C. LTD.

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS

Final Order No. C/651/97-B2, dated 19-12-1996 in Appeal No. C/2216/89-B2

Advocated By : None, for the Appellant.

Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)]. - This Appeal is directed against order dated 10-5-1996 of Collector of Customs (Appeals).

2. The Appellants claimed benefit of exemption under Notification No. 69/87 in regard to spare parts of oil seal, retaining ring, ring gear, roller gear pins, slow speed shaft and accentric with bearing. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that Notification No. 132/87 excludes goods falling under Chapter 84.83 from the purview of Chapter 98.06.

3. Appellants desired decision on merits.

4. Ld. DR submits that by virtue of Notification issued under Note 7 of Chapter 98 goods cannot be classified under Chapter 98.06. Therefore the benefit under Notification No. 69/87 cannot be extended to them.

5. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the records of the case. According to Chapter Note 7(d) Heading 98.06 does not cover among others :

“Any other part of machinery which the Central Government may, having regard to its nature of being a part having general application, notify in the official Gazettee in this behalf.”

Notification No. l32/87, dated l9-3-1987 has been issued in exercise of power conferred by Clause (d) of Note 7 of Chapter 98. This notification notified goods falling under Chapter Heading 84.83 as goods for the purpose of notification. These goods in otherwords are parts having general application. It is therefore clear that the goods which fall under Chapter 8483.90 cannot be classified under Chapter Heading 98.06. Notification 69/87, dated 1-3-1987 exempts parts falling under Heading 98.06 of certain machinery and equipments from Custom Duty. The fact remains that Notification No. 132/87 issued on 19-3-1987 categorically excludes Chapter Heading 84.83 from the purview of Chapter 98 and in view of this exemption Notification strictly considered cannot be extended to the appellants. It is well settled proposition of law that in case of exemption notification, the ambiguity or doubt will be resolved in favour of the Revenue and not in favour of the Assessee. In view of this we reject the appeal and uphold the impugned order.

_______

Equivalent 1998 (101) ELT 656 (Tribunal)