1998(05)LCX0124

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

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

CINECITA PRIVATE LIMITED

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SURAT

Final Order No. 300/98-B2, dated 1-5-1998 in Appeal No. C/774/92-B2

CASE CITED

Cinetekk v. Collector — 1997(08)LCX0153 Eq 1998 (099) ELT 0418 (Tribunal) — Followed                                    [Para 4]

Advocated By : Shri R. Parthasarthy, Advocate, for the Appellant.

Shri Lakinder Singh, JCDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. - In this appeal filed by M/s. Cinecita Private Limited, the matter relates to the classification of the goods imported described as `Reflectors’ (Components of 35 mm Cinematographic Equipments). The goods were classified under sub-heading No. 9007.00 of the Central Excise Tariff and sub-heading No. 9002.90 of the Customs Tariff. While clearing the goods under ex-bond Bill of Entry, the benefit of Notification No. 100/72-C.E. as amended was given. Subsequently, show-cause notice was issued on the ground that the goods were classifiable for countervailing duty u/s.h. No. 9002.00 and the differential duty was demanded invoking the extended period of limitation. It was restricted by the adjudicating authority for a normal period for six months and the duty of Rs. 51,792/- was confirmed. The order passed by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise was confirmed by the Collector, Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad.

2. We have heard Shri R. Parthasarthy, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Lakinder Singh, JCDR is present for the respondent Revenue.

3. At the outset, Shri R. Parthasarthy, Advocate submitted that he is not contesting the issue relating to the payment of countervailing duty. His submission is that for customs duty purpose, the reflectors for cinematographic projector being a part of cinematographic projector are classifiable under Heading No. 90.07 of the Customs Tariff and they are eligible for the concessional rate of customs duty under Notification No. 93/86-Cus. It was his submission that the appellants had claimed the benefit of this exemption Notification No. 93/86-Cus. in their reply dated 5-6-1991 to the show cause notice dated 1-5-1991. He referred to page 13 of the paper book. There they had pleaded that the benefit under Notification No. 93/86-Cus. was available to the appellants.

4. We find that the matter is covered by the Tribunal decision in the case of Cinetekk v. C.C., Madras reported in 1997(08)LCX0153 Eq 1998 (099) ELT 0418 (Tribunal). Para 5 of that order is extracted below :

“5. Under Notification No. 93/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986, the cinematographic 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.”

5. Following the above Tribunal decision, we do not agree with the view taken by the Asstt. Collector that the reflectors were classifiable under sub-heading No. 9002.00.

6. As a result, the appeal is allowed insofar as the classification and the applicability of the exemption Notification aforesaid under Customs Tariff is concerned. We are not concerned with the classification under Central Excise Tariff as the appellants had not contested the same. With the above observation, the appeal is allowed. Ordered accordingly.

_______

Equivalent 1998 (102) ELT 571 (Tribunal)