1997(08)LCX0153

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

S/Shri Lajja Ram, Member (T) and S.S. Kang, Member (J)

CINETEKK

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS

Final Order No. C/1920/97-B2, dated 20-8-1997 in Appeal No. C/2113/89-B2

CASE CITED

Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. U.O.I. — 1996(12)LCX0012 Eq 1997 (089) ELT 0247 (SC) — Followed                         [Para 9]

Advocated By : Shri K. Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellants.

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

[Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. - In this appeal filed by M/s Cinetekk, the issue for our consideration is whether the reflectors for the cinematographic projectors were eligible for the concessional rate of customs duty under Notification No. 93/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986, as amended. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) in his findings had recorded as under :

“On a careful reading of the Notification No. 93/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986 one cannot fail to notice the fact that something is wrong with Item No. 3 in the table thereunder. While Serial No. 1, 2 and 4 in col. 2 refer to goods falling under the specified headings, in respect of Serial No. 3 above ”main equipments" such as cine projectors have been mentioned in column 2, thereby taking away parts of those equipments from the purview of the notification. However, in column 4 the exclusion of parts or accessories containing thermionic valves etc. is common for all the Serial nos. Logically when certain parts are excluded from the concessional assessment it does not stand to reason to deny exemption to the other parts of the equipment. However, due to the apparent anomaly in the wording under column 2, the scope of the exemption gets limited to the main equipments only, so far as Serial No. 3 above is concerned."

2. Shri K. Kumar, Advocate, appearing for the appellants, referred to the Tariff Circular No. 22/86 circulated by the Deputy Collector of Customs (Appg.), Customs House, Madras-1, in which the clarification by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi, under F. No. 528/162/86-Cus. (TU), dated 19-6-1986 had been circulated. The Board’s circular is in the following terms :

“M/s Cine Sale Corporation represented that consignment of parts of cinema- tographic projectors is held up due to refusal of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 93-Cus., dated 17-2-1986 (.) This notification is reissue of Notification No. 43-Cus, dated 28-2-1982 under new Customs Tariff (.) S. No. 3 of the Table annexed to the notification includes parts and accessories of instruments mentioned therein except those specified in Column (4) for the purpose of exemption (.) This is evident from the fact that Heading No. 85.22 which exclusively covers parts and accessories is also included in the description portion (.) Sub-heading No. 9007.91 and 9007.92 for parts and accessories are covered by Heading No. 90.07 specified in the notification (.) Parts of cinematographic projectors would therefore be eligible for exemption.”

3. In reply, Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR, stated that the exemption as held by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was limited to the main equipment only and he reiterated the findings of the lower authority.

4. We have carefully considered the matter. The goods involved were parts of the cinematographic projectors. Cinematographic projectors were classifiable under Heading No. 90.07 of the Tariff. Under this heading not only the complete cinematographic projectors were classifiable, but the parts and accessories for the projectors were also classifiable (sub-heading No. 9007.92).

5. Under Notification No. 93/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986, the cinemato-graphic projectors, sound recorders, and sound [reproducers] and any combination of these articles falling under Heading No. 85.19, 85.20, 85.22 or 90.07 were eligible for the concessional rate of customs duty. This concessional rate, however, was not applicable to the parts specified under Column 4 of the table of that notification. The goods involved were reflectors for cinematographic projectors and they did not figure in the excluded items under Column 4 of the table, aforesaid. We find that the parts of cinematographic projectors were also classifiable under Heading No. 90.07 which is covered by the description under Column 2 of the table, aforesaid.

6. Further, the Board’s clarification is also relevant to the issue under consideration.

7. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) had referred that there was an anomaly in the notification and that in view of the apparent anomaly, the scope of the exemption got limited to the main equipment only so far as Serial No. 3 of the table under that Notification No. 93/86-Cus. is concerned. We consider that as the parts of the cinematographic projectors were included under Heading No. 90.07, the reflectors was not a excluded part for the purposes of that notification and as the Board’s clarification confirms exemption in respect of the goods in question, the view taken by the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals) was not correct.

8. Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we allow this appeal.

9. Any refund, however, will be subject to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd., 1996(12)LCX0012 Eq 1997 (089) ELT 0247 (S.C.).

10. Subject to the above observations, the appeal is otherwise allowed.

_______

Equivalent 1998 (99) ELT 418 (Tribunal)

Equivalent 1997 (023) RLT 0253