Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Hindustan Aeronaurics ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Bangalore)
Appeal Number : C/543/2009-DB
Date of Judgement/Order : 05/09/2018
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Hindustan Aeronaurics Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Bangalore)

It is evident by the submissions of the appellant that the impugned part is not only a mere sting or wire or rope but is part of A90B100 which consists of other units. It was not correct on the part of the department to isolate a minor part of the whole assembly and to classify the same according to the metal used in the manufacture of the same. We find that the highly technical equipment cannot be differentiated into smaller parts and cannot be classified as per the make of a smaller part in it. Moreover, we find that supplying country has classified the same under Chapter 88. We also find that irrespective of the classification, the impugned goods are eligible for exemption under Notification No.39/1996-Cus. dated 31.7.1996. When the Tribunal (supra) has held ground power unit to be part of the helicopters, there should be no doubt in classifying the impugned equipment as parts of helicopters.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT ORDER

M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, the appellants, have imported, vide Bill of Entry No.942638 dated  0.11.2005, parts of helicopters for supply to Navy. Among the items imported was a ‘cargo sling’. The Departmental audit opined that the ‘cargo slings’ is more appropriately classifiable as an accessory to helicopter and cannot be part of helicopter, the ‘sling’ seems to be classified under Chapter Heading 7312.1010 and exemption under Notifications No.21/2002-Cus. and No.6/2002-CE are not applicable. A show-cause notice was issued and was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No.100/2008 dated 30.8.2008. Commissioner has upheld the order of the lower authorities vide Order-in-Appeal No.47/2009 dated 12.5.2009; hence, this appeal.

2. The appellants in their grounds of appeal have submitted that the findings of the Commissioner (A) were based on the notion that the ‘cargo sling’ is only a wire rope whereas the ‘cargo sling’ imported bearing part No.A90B100 consists of electrical release control, mechanical release control, release unit, release unit support frame, etc. The sling is only a minor part of the whole assembly of the said part. They have submitted a technical literature.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

One Comment

  1. vswami says:

    iNSTANT reaction (:
    Another version of convoluted thinking by the tax gatherer; no different from the often come-across painful attempt at dissecting a composite, indivisible contract of sale, as a divisible transaction, to tax a portion as for supply of (input) goods or services ?!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031