UNION OF INDIA Vs. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the original respondents. They are hereinafter referred to as the respondents. The respondents to the appeal are the original petitioners. They are hereinafter referred to as the petitioners.

(2.) THE petitioners are engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of jeeps, tractors and similar vehicles. In the course of manufacture the petitioners are required to make certain engine parts. The parts in question are cast by pouring molten metal into sand moulds. The sand moulds for these parts are prepared by the petitioners with the help of machines known as jolt and squeeze machines. The pattern for the mould is first mounted on the jolt and squeeze machine. A moulding box is mounted around the pattern and sand is poured over the pattern. This sand is squeezed by the jolt and squeeze machine for the purpose of producing the sand moulds for making these engine parts.

(3.) THE patterns and allied equipment in the present case are made of an aluminium alloy. The life of the pattern equipment is generally 2 to 5 years and one set of pattern equipment can be used for making around 30,000 to 50,000 sand moulds. In the month of January 1978 the petitioners imported two consignments of pattern equipment for their engine parts. The respondents assessed these pattern equipment to customs duty and countervailing duty under Tariff Entry 76. 08/16 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The respondents also assessed countervailing duty on this import by applying the rates under Item 27 of the Central Excise Tariff. The petitioners objected to the computation of customs duty and countervailing duty.