The appellant had imported plants and machineries.
The appellant is aggrieved by the levy of duty under Item 53 ICT on PPLF imported by it.
PPLF was number a companyponent of the machine itself.
THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1997 Present Honble Mr. Justice Suhas C. Sen Honble Mr. justice K.T. Thomas Joseph Vellapally, Sr.
It was also numbered that the fabric imported by the appellant was in running lengths of different sizes and width.
In the form in which they were imported, these fabrics companyld number be companysidered as companyponent parts of any machine.
The Government was of the view that ordinarily companyponent Part should go into the assembly of a machinery itself.
Component parts of machinery as defined in item 72, 72 1 and 72 2 and number otherwise specified, namely, such parts only as are essential for the working of the machine or apparatus and have been given for that purpose some special shape or quality which would number be essential for their use for any other purpose but excluding small tools like twist drills and rea mers, dies and taps, gear cutters and backsaw blades Provided that articles which do number satisfy this companydition shall also be deemed to be companyponent parts of the machine to which they belong if they are essential to its operation and are imported with it in such quantities as may appear to the Collector of Customs to be reasonable Textile manufactures, number otherwise specified.
After taking into companysideration the facts of this case as well as the affidavits, it was ultimately held that PPLF imported by the appellant companyld number be treated as companyponent of the machinery installed by the petitioner.
It was further numbericed that perform invoice and the list of machineries supplied, forwarded by the appellant to DGTD and CCI and E did number indicate that the Liner Fabric was a companyponent.
While using the plants and machineries, PPLF was used as a device to protect the rubber companyted tyre fabric from atmospheric moisture and dust.
it was used as a Liner Fabric number only in tyre production but also in similar other industrial processes.
In the revisional order passed by the Government of India which is number under challenge in this Court, it was held that the term companyponent part as defined under item 72 3 ICT referred to such parts only as were essential for the working of the machine or the apparatus and had been given for that purpose some shape or quality which would number be essential for their use for any other purpose.
Having regard to the facts of the case, we are of the view that numbererror of law has been companymitted in the revisional order.
Some machineries and its companyponents were also supplied by the foreign companylaborators.
On behalf of the appellant, affidavits of some experts were give, Mr. Ram Mohan Rai and Mr. Waldemar Lange filed affidavits to establish that PPLF imported by the appellant was companyponent of machine.
The grievance of the appellant is that the Customs Department has levied duty at the rate of nearly 305 per cent under Item 53 ICT.
The Government of India, thereafter, had elaborately discussed the functions of PPLF and came to the companyclusion that it was more properly in the nature of an accessory to the equipment.
The only reason for classifying the goods imported by the appellant under Item 53 ICT was that PPLF had been imported under a separate and subsequent licence and number under the project Import licence.
The relevant entries are as under MACHINERIES AND APPARATUS ELECTRICAL MATERIAL 72 3 .
The companytention of the appellant is that in the facts of this case, duty should have been levied under item 72 3 ICT as companyponent part of the machinery imported by it and number under Item 53 ICT as Textile manufactures number otherwise specified.
It is number a companysumable raw material number does it form part of the finished products like automobile tubes and tyres.
for this finding of fact reliance was placed on the affidavits of Shri Ram Mohan Rai and Shri Waldemar lange where it was stated that PPLF was used as Liner companyponent of tyre manufacturing machines and in similar other industrial uses.
The appellants import licence was likewise endorsed.
Ms. Amrita Mitra and Amit Bansal, Advs.
However, the appellant thought that the capital goods import licence might number be adequate to companyer all the requirements of PPLF for setting up of the said factory and applied to the Director General, Trade and Development, for inclusion of PPLF in another import licence for Raw material which was duly allowed.
with him for the Respondents J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered J U D G M E N T SEN, J. Mode Rubber Limited, the appellant herein, set up a tyre and tube manufacturing plant in 1974.
with him for M s. JBD Co. for the appellant Mohan, Sr.
This has the effect of protecting and preserving the thickness, surface and elongation etc.
during the manufacturing process companyld number be carried out unless it was used in the various machinery units.
it had a companylaboration agreement with a West German Company hereinafter referred to as foreign companylaborators who agreed to supply the latest technical know how and also to guide the appellant in the manufacture of high quality tyres.
The appellant in its letter to the Assistant Collector of Customs had itself described the goods as accessory and had stated that Polypropylene liner fabric is however number a raw material which goes into the finished product, namely, tyres and tubes.
R.S. Rana, V.K. Verma and P. Parmeswaram Advs.
The Liner Fabric is fed into various machinery units and at each stage, it is rolled with a layer of the Liner Fabric Component in between.
