SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

S.DUGGAL, I.J.RAO
Gordon Woodroffe & Co. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Customs, Madras – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
K.V Kunhikrishnan,J. Gopinath

ORDER

S. Duggal, Member (T)

1. In the two appeals captioned above, the surviving issue is common; namely, as to whether items imported as "springs" by the appellants merit classification as parts of machinery under Tariff Item 84.29 of CTA or as articles of General Use depending upon their composition vis-a-vis the metal and correspondingly under T.I. 73.33/40. The authorities below have gone by the definition given in Section Note 2(b) to Section XV of the CTA, and 'springs' have been treated as "parts of general use", irrespective of their use in machinery or mechanical equipment It was, therefore, held that all steel springs were correctly classifiable under TI 73.33/40 of the CTA.

2. Today, Shri K.V. Kunhikrishnan appearing for the appellants in both the appeals has argued that Chapter 73 falls under Section XV, and that a reference to the Section notes reveals that note 1 of this Section which contains exclusion clauses; mentions, inter alia, vide clause (f) that 'articles falling within Section XVI (machinery, mechanical appliances and electrical goods)', and that this Section Note 1 precedes Note 2 on which the authorities below have placed reliance. Shri Kunhikrishnan contends

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top