Case: Collector of Customs, Bombay Vs. Messrs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, New Delhi

84.04/05 or any other item heading in chapters falling under Section XVI merely because they are parts of such article. Similarly, Note 2 to Section XVI only makes it clear that even parts of machinery may be assessable under the same heading as the main machinery, provided they form an integral part of the machine and are suitable for use more or less or principally with a particular kind of machine or number of machines falling under a particular heading. But since this note is subject to Note 1(l), it does not alter the position that the parts are assessable under Heading No. 92.04. We do not think it necessary to discuss the contents of these notes more elaborately; it is sufficient to say that they do not advance the first contention urged on behalf of the appellants 8. The second contention of the learned counsel runs thus : the concession or exemption from auxiliary duty under Notification No. 41 of 1980 can be claimed only in respect of goods which are partially or wholly exempt by virtue of Notification No. 35 of 1979. The parts in the present case as well the principal article of which they are part are both assessable to basic duty at the same rate. Since the duty payable on the part, even without invoking the notification, is not in excess of the duty payable on the article, the assessee cannot be said to have got a partial or complete exemption of basics duty by virtue of Notification No. 35 of 1979. Consequently, the assessee cannot claim any benefit under Notification No. 41 of 1980. This interpretation no doubt leads to an anomaly in marginal cases. If the rate of duty on the part had been 41 per cent, the assessee would have been entitled to a complete exemption from auxiliary duty. On the other hand, if the rate of duty on the part had only been 39 per cent or 40 per cent, he would have to pay the auxiliary duty because the notification does not apply to it in terms. Counsel, however, submits that such anomalies are inevitable in the case of provisions of this type and that, in taxing matters, it is imperative to concentrate on the language of the statute or the relevant statutory instrument. If the wording clearly imposes a tax or gives a relief, that should be given effect to. If the wording does not justify either the imposition or the relief, it should not be extended merely on the ground that there may be some unintended anomaly as a consequence of the interpretation or that the equities of the situation require a more liberal interpretation 9. There is, however, another way of reading the notifications before us and it is this which appeals to us as the more reasonable one. On this interpretation, relief under Notification No. 41 of 1980 will not depend upon the actual operation or application of Notification No. 35 of 1979 in the case of a particular item of goods. It is intended for a class of goods. The 1979 notification grants an exemption or concession in respect of the basic duty payable on certain classes of goods viz. parts of articles which fall under one of the specified headings and required for certain purposes. The purport and intention of the 1980 notification is to exempt the class of goods falling under the purview of the 1979 notification from auxiliary duty as well. The exemption under the 1980 notification does not depend, in this view, on the practical effect of the application of the 1979 notification in a particular case. Its applicability should not be confined to items of goods in respect of which a reduction in duty is actually enjoyed under one of the notifications included in the schedule to the 1980 notification. There appears to be no logic in saying that the exemption from auxiliary duty in respect of the same part will be available only where the duty chargeable on the part is more than, but becomes equal to, that on the whole article by applying the 1979 notification but not where the duty on the part is the same as that of the whole even otherwise. Equally, it seems absurd to say that when the part suffers a basic duty of 40 per cent and the whole a duty of 40 per cent, there will be a countervailing duty but that there will be no such duty where the basic duty on the part is 41 per cent or more but reduced to 40 per cent because of the 1977 notification. The correct position appears to be that the purpose and purport of the 1979 notification is to ensure that, in respect of the articles listed therein, the part should not suffer a higher duty than the whole. The 1980 notification likewise exempts this category of articles, which enjoy the benefit of the same or less duty on the part than that on the whole, from auxiliary duty 10. We think that this interpretation not only does not do any violence to the language of the notifications but, on the other hand, gives effect to its true intent and purpose. We, therefore, uphold the view taken by the Tribunal somewhat hesitantly, that the assessee was entitled to exemption from auxiliary duty in respect of the goods in question 11. Shri Murthy, at one stage, pointed out that the claims in the present case also related to consignments imported on or after March 1, 1981. He submitted that the Notification No. 41 of 1980 had ceased to be in force on February 28, 1981 and that the exemption from countervailing duty was not available thereafter. Though this was a new point, we were inclined to consider it. But, after some further research into the terms of the various notifications issued on or after March 1, 1981, he conceded that the exemption continued to be available on the same or similar terms.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]7. So far as the first point raised by the learned counsel is concerned, we think it proceeds on a misconception. To get the benefit of Notification No. 35 of 1979 it is not necessary that pressure gauge should be assessable under Item84.04/05. All that is needed is that it should be a part of an article falling, inter alia, underHeading No.84.04/05 and that condition is fulfilled here as the pressure gauges, though assessable underHeading No.92.04, are parts of steam engines which fall under84.04/05. There is no controversy before us that the pressure gauges imported by the assessee are parts of steam turbines manufactured by it and that the parts have been imported for the purpose of initial setting up of the steam engine or for its assembly or manufacture. The provision of the first part of Notification No. 35 of 1979, are, therefore, fulfilled. The contents of the note to which our attention has been drawn are not, in our opinion, of any assistance. Note 1(g) is of no assistance at all. Note 1(l) only makes it clear that pressure gauges will be assessable under ItemHeading No.90.24 and cannot be brought under 84.04/05 or any other item heading in chapters falling under Section XVI merely because they are parts of such article. Similarly, Note 2 to Section XVI only makes it clear that even parts of machinery may be assessable under the same heading as the main machinery, provided they form an integral part of the machine and are suitable for use more or less or principally with a particular kind of machine or number of machines falling under a particular heading. But since this note is subject to Note 1(l), it does not alter the position that the parts are assessable under92.04. We do not think it necessary to discuss the contents of these notes more elaborately; it is sufficient to say that they do not advance the first contention urged on behalf of the appellantsThe parts in the present case as well the principal article of which they are part are both assessable to basic duty at the same rate. Since the duty payable on the part, even without invoking the notification, is not in excess of the duty payable on the article, the assessee cannot be said to have got a partial or complete exemption of basics duty by virtue of Notification No. 35 of 1979. Consequently, the assessee cannot claim any benefit under Notification No. 41 of 1980. This interpretation no doubt leads to an anomaly in marginal cases. If the rate of duty on the part had been 41 per cent, the assessee would have been entitled to a complete exemption from auxiliary duty. On the other hand, if the rate of duty on the part had only been 39 per cent or 40 per cent, he would have to pay the auxiliary duty because the notification does not apply to it in terms. Counsel, however, submits that such anomalies are inevitable in the case of provisions of this type and that, in taxing matters, it is imperative to concentrate on the language of the statute or the relevant statutory instrument. If the wording clearly imposes a tax or gives a relief, that should be given effect to. If the wording does not justify either the imposition or the relief, it should not be extended merely on the ground that there may be some unintended anomaly as a consequence of the interpretation or that the equities of the situation require a more liberal interpretation9. There is, however, another way of reading the notifications before us and it is this which appeals to us as the more reasonable one. On this interpretation, relief under Notification No. 41 of 1980 will not depend upon the actual operation or application of Notification No. 35 of 1979 in the case of a particular item of goods. It is intended for a class of goods. The 1979 notification grants an exemption or concession in respect of the basic duty payable on certain classes of goods viz. parts of articles which fall under one of the specified headings and required for certain purposes. The purport and intention of the 1980 notification is to exempt the class of goods falling under the purview of the 1979 notification from auxiliary duty as well. The exemption under the 1980 notification does not depend, in this view, on the practical effect of the application of the 1979 notification in a particular case. Its applicability should not be confined to items of goods in respect of which a reduction in duty is actually enjoyed under one of the notifications included in the schedule to the 1980 notification. There appears to be no logic in saying that the exemption from auxiliary duty in respect of the same part will be available only where the duty chargeable on the part is more than, but becomes equal to, that on the whole article by applying the 1979 notification but not where the duty on the part is the same as that of the whole even otherwise. Equally, it seems absurd to say that when the part suffers a basic duty of 40 per cent and the whole a duty of 40 per cent, there will be a countervailing duty but that there will be no such duty where the basic duty on the part is 41 per cent or more but reduced to 40 per cent because of the 1977 notification. The correct position appears to be that the purpose and purport of the 1979 notification is to ensure that, in respect of the articles listed therein, the part should not suffer a higher duty than the whole. The 1980 notification likewise exempts this category of articles, which enjoy the benefit of the same or less duty on the part than that on the whole, from auxiliary duty10. We think that this interpretation not only does not do any violence to the language of the notifications but, on the other hand, gives effect to its true intent and purpose. We, therefore, uphold the view taken by the Tribunal somewhat hesitantly, that the assessee was entitled to exemption from auxiliary duty in respect of the goods in questionThough this was a new point, we were inclined to consider it. But, after some further research into the terms of the various notifications issued on or after March 1, 1981, he conceded that the exemption continued to be available on the same or similar terms.