LAWS(CE)-2004-4-318

KOATEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Vs. CC

Decided On April 02, 2004
Koatex Infrastructure Ltd. Appellant
V/S
Cc Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed by the appellants against the impugned order -in -appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the issue relates to the availability of the benefit of Notification No. 36/97 dated 1.4.1997 as amended against Special Imprest Licence (SIL) to the appellants in respect of the spares of the machines/machinery imported by them under the DEEC scheme.

(2.) I have heard both the sides. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the benefit of the above said Notification to the appellants for claiming total exemption from payment of customs duty on the ground that the spares were not covered by the said Notification which applied only to the components. He has followed the ratio of law laid down in this regard by the Division Bench of the Tribunal in Delta Jute and Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta 7/ wherein such a view had been taken by the Tribunal by placing reliance on the Larger Bench decision in Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries v. Collector of Customs. But this Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in fact, was overruled by the Apex Court when appealed against as reported in 1999 (114) ELT 778, and the Apex Court has ruled that as under: The component is the genus while spare is the species. The spare part though fitted to a machine subsequent to its manufacture, to replace a defective or worn out part, becomes a component of the machine, therefore, is a component part, entitled to the benefit of the exemption Notifications 242/76 -Cus. And 112/87 -Cus, which were involved in that case.

(3.) It appears that this decision of the Apex Court escaped the notice of the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal while deciding the case of Delta Jute and Industries Ltd. (supra) on the basis of the over -ruled judgment of the Larger Bench in Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries (supra). Therefore the said judgment of the Tribunal based on the overuled judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal could not be followed by the Commissioner (appeals).