S.DUGGAL, I.J.RAO
Gordon Woodroffe & Co. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Customs, Madras – Respondent
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.