{"id":31990,"date":"1987-02-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-02-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987"},"modified":"2018-12-19T12:18:15","modified_gmt":"2018-12-19T06:48:15","slug":"guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987","title":{"rendered":"Guest Keen Williams Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 19 February, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Delhi<\/div>\n
Guest Keen Williams Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 19 February, 1987<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1987 (13) ECR 553 Tri Delhi, 1987 (29) ELT 68 Tri Del<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
I.J. Rao, Member (T)<\/p>\n
1. The appellants imported, under a Bill of Entry No. 1416 dated 24.2.83, two ‘Automatic Nut Making Machines Comprising one Blanking Press REMP 16N and one Finishing Press KP-16 & Accessories, etc.” The goods were assessed provisionally and allowed clearance against a bond. The benefit of Notification No. 40\/78-Cus was extended. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellants threatening the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 40\/78-Cus. After due process, which included personal hearing to the appellants, the Assistant Collector held that the Blanking Press (BP for short) would not be entitled to the concessional assessment under Notification No. 40\/78-Cus. because the product manufactured by it is not a ‘Nut’. Benefit of the Notification was extended to the Finishing Press because the product manufactured by it was considered to be a ‘Nut’ (without threading).\n<\/p>\n
 2. Aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The Collector rejected the appeal observing as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“I have carefully considered the submission of the appellants both written and oral, as well as the records of the case. The dispute in this case is regarding applicability or otherwise of the benefit . of Notification No. 40 Cus. dated 1.3.78 to the goods imported. The appellants have pleaded that they had imported two machines – one blanking press and one finishing press – both of which are essentially required in the manufacture of nuts for installation in their own factory as multi-station, nut making machines. They have further explained that these two machines, between themselves work seven stages from raw material stage to the finishing blank stage automatically in their nut making unit while the blanking press works the first five stages, the finishing press works the final two stages. But contrary to their expectation the blanking press-was not allowed the benefit of Notification No. 40 Cus. dated 1.3.78 which inter-alia’ is specific for multi-station Nut making machine. The adjudicating authority has, however, allowed the benefit of the said Notification 40\/78 on the finishing press. But the blanking press has been denied the benefit on the ground that the blanking press merely produces blanks and, therefore, cannot be considered as a nut making machine. The appellants have contested the finding of the adjudicating authority by stating that since both the machines are essential for manufacture of nuts automatically and since both are complimentary to each other, both should get the benefit meant for multi-station Nut making machine. In support of their contention the appellants have also referred to a clarification by D.G.T.D. certifying that for the purpose of licensing both the machines are to be treated at par.\n<\/p>\n
The certificate by D.G.T.D. cannot have any bearing on whether the goods imported would attract the benefits of a concessional notification or not. Though there is some prima facie merit in ‘the appellants’ contention that both the machines together go to make a complete multi-station automatic nut making machine, I am unable to accept their claim that for considering the benefit of notification to be allowed to certain goods also this has to be guiding factor. On the other hand, I find that in this case two machines of different functions were involved whereas the benefit of the Notification No. 40\/78 is meant for a nut making machine only. Since both the machines have different functions from one another, only one machine can be logically held to produce nuts\/finished blanks. Thus logically again only one machine may be entitled to the benefit of the notification in question. In view of the above, I am unable to find any fault with the findings of the adjudicating authority and to interfere with the order-in-original.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal fails and is rejected.”\n<\/p>\n
Hence the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
3. The learned Counsel for the appellants recalled the facts of the matter and submitted that the description in the indent placed by the appellants, that invoice and in the Bill of Entry, all, show that the appellants imported ‘one automatic multi-station nut making machine with accessories, toolings and spares’. The name of the machine was ‘NUTAP – Combiformer’ which comprised various parts. He argued that the appellants imported a machine which was split up into two parts, namely B.P. and Finishing Press. He explained that the BP produces blanks (for nuts), in five stages, which are semi-processed nuts, and the Finishing Press processes these in two stages, i.e., the blanks are produced which are finished and completed in all respects except threading. He argued that these two machines are fully integrated and are, for all purposes, only one machine intended to produce nut blanks. The seven steps of processing\/manufacture are performed by the two machines together.\n<\/p>\n
4. The learned Counsel further argued that a nut-blank comes into existence after sizing, which is a process done by the BP.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Shri   B.B.   Gujral   further   argued   that   Notification   No. 40\/79-Cus. gave   partial   exemption   to   ‘automatic   multi-station   bolt   or   nut   making machine  (Serial   No.   12   of the  Table)’.     He  invited  our  attention to the Import   Policy   for   April   81   –   March   82   and,   particularly,   to   Appendix-2 (List of capital goods allowed under OGL Serial No. 41), where        OGL was extended to ‘automatic multi-station bolt\/nut making machine’.    Shri Gujral argued   that   the   Customs   having   extended   the   facility   of   OGL   to  the goods,  there  was an  explicit  acceptance  on  their  part  that  the  imported goods were ‘automatic multi-station bolt\/nut  making machine’  and invited our attention to the total similarity of this description with the description appearing at Serial No.  12 in the Table to the Notification No. 40\/78-Cus. He argued  that,   in  view of the  identical description,   the same treatment should be given to the goods for purposes of classification and assessment &   licencing.     Shri Gujral further  invited  our  attention to a letter, dated 6.5.82,   from   the   Director   General   of   Technical   Development,   wherein it was stated that the entry in the Import Policy [No. 1(41) of Appendix-2 of Policy for 81-82] covered machines for the manufacture of nuts without threads.    He emphasised that the Assistant Collector’s order was factually wrong and that both the machines produce blanks only.   The learned Counsel argued  that   the  order-in-appeal  does not   show  any  application  of   mind, in that   it  ignored the opinion  of the DGTD,  without  giving any reasons, and recording only vague findings.\n<\/p>\n
6.   Shri   Gujral   emphasised   that   the   goods   were   imported   under   a single   importation   and   were   manufactured   by   the   same   manufacturer, and   were   designed   as   complementary   being   sold   and   purchased  together, and invoiced accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
7.    Another   argument   of   the   learned   Counsel   was   that   Note-3   to Section  XVI   of  the   First  Schedule to the CTA,  should be liberally  interpreted   to   cover   the   present   goods.     He   further   submitted  that   ‘blanks’ were defined  in Rule 2(a)  of CCCN (Explaination to Interpretative Rules), and   submitted  that   a  ‘blank’   should  be  considered as a  ‘finished article’ if   it   could  ultimately  be  used only as such a finished article.     Referring to   Rule   3   of   the  Interpretative  Rules,   and  to  the  Section   Notes  under Chapter   XVI,   Shri   Gujral   submitted   that   the   same   machine   was   dealt with   in   an   order   of   the  Tribunal   (Order   No.,   485\/84-B   dated   19.6.84) in   the   case   of   M\/s.   Zunesh   India   Enterprises   v.   Collector   of   Customs, Calcutta,   and   under   another   order   (Order   No.   868   &    869\/84-B   dated 30.11.84) in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. (i) Technological   Centre,   New   Delhi,   and   (ii)   Escorts  Ltd.,   Faridabad.      He also   referred   to   a   Government   of   India   Order   IN   RE:   TEAMS   INDIA, reported   in   ‘1982   ELT   481   (G.O.I.).      In   support   of   his  argument,   that the  Taxtile Commissioner   was  an  expert  and the  expert’s opinion  should, normally,   be  accepted,  Shri Gujral  placed reliance  on a  judgment   in the matter   of   ‘K. Mohan   And   Company,   Bombay   v.   Collector   of   Customs, Madras’,<\/a> reported in ‘1984 (15) ELT 430V   In support of his further argument, that technical evidence like  Manufacturer’s Certificate, should be accepted and due regard paid to that, Shri Gujral cited ‘1984 ECR  1086’  and ‘1986 (6) ECR 334’.\n<\/p>\n
8.   Shri   3.   Gopinath,   the   learned  SDR,   submitted  that   the  facts  of the   matter  are  not   in  dispute and  also agreed that  in the Bill of Entry, there was only one  item  mentioned.    He pointed out that the goods were classified under H. 84.45\/48 of the CTA, and there is no dispute regarding the   classification.      The   dispute   is   only   regarding   applicability   of   Notification No. 40\/78-Cus. to the present goods.\n<\/p>\n
9.   Shri   Gopinath   submitted   that,   for   purposes   of   this   Notification the   imported   goods   should   be   automatic;   they   should   be   multi-station; and they should be nut   making machines.     He emphasised that,  according to  the   Notification,   the   imported   goods   should   be  ‘a   machine’,   that   is to  say,   a   single  machine.    Explaining the terms used  in the Notification, Shri  Gopinath   submitted  that   the  word  ‘automatic’   would   mean  ‘without human effort’, and submitted that when a rod is inserted into the machine and  a   nut   comes  out,   the   operation   would  be   called  ‘automatic’   if  no other  human interference or effort is there.    Explaining the word ‘multistation’,  Shri Gopinath  submitted that this would denote different  stages of operation in the same machine.   Shri Gopinath agreed that  even without threading, a nut would be a nut, and submitted that he was not differing from the orders of the Tribunal in the case of Zunesh India Enterprises v.   Collector   of   Customs,   Calcutta   (Order   No.   485\/84-B   dated   19.6.84).\n<\/p>\n
10. Shri Gopinath agreed that there is no machine in the world which would produce nuts with threads in a single multi-station unit, but submitted that   there   are   machines   which   would   produce   nuts   without   threads  in a   single machine.     In  this  connection,  the  learned SDR   referred to the appellants’   letter   dated   15.9.83,   to the Assistant  Collector  of Customs, wherein the appellants themselves furnished  information relating to other nut-making   machines   wherein   all   the  operations  were  done  in  a   single machine.\n<\/p>\n
11. Referring to the learned Counsel’s argument, Shri J. Gopinath submitted “that the D.G.T.D. letter applied only to the licensing, and the interpretation of a Customs Notification cannot be based on the opinion of the DGTD. He further submitted that Section Note (b) in Section XVI was intended for classification only and not for the interpretation of a notification. Referring to Rule 1 of the Rules for Interpretation Shri Gopinath submitted that this Rule itself lays down that the Rules were to be applied only for the purposes of Notification under the Schedule.\n<\/p>\n
12. Shri   Gopinath   further   argued   that   five   functions   in   the  BP   and two   functions   in   the   Finishing Press  are  automatic,  but  argued  that  the BP   does   not  make   nuts   whereas  the  Finishing Press makes them   except for   threading.      Shri   Gopinath   further   argued   that   the   suppliers   of   the equipment   did,   in  their   letter  dated  8.9.83,  give  split  values  of  the  two machines and submitted that it is a plausible situation that a single machine out of the two can be supplied, depending on the exigencies.\n<\/p>\n
13. Shri   Gopinath   further   submitted   that   the   scope  of  a  notification cannot   be   enlarged   by   supplying   intendment   when  the  language  is  clear. He relied on the following case-law in support of his argument :-\n<\/p>\n
(i)         1978 ELT 0350)\n \n\nM\/s.  Hemraj  Gordhandas v.  H.H. Dave, Assistant Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat and Ors..<\/a>\n \n\n(ii)        1981 ELT  128(Bom.)\n \n\nM\/s.  Jenson  And  Nicholson (India)  Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors..\n \n\n(iii)       1983 ELT 3'45(Mad.)\n \n\nM\/s.   Indian   Organic   Chemicals   Ltd.   v.   Union   of   India   and  Ors..\n \n\n(iv)        1983 ELT 345(Mad.)\n \n\nWitco Match   Works,  Kalugumalai  And  Another  v.  Union  of India and\n \n\nOthers.\n \n\n<\/pre>\n
14. Referring to the order of the Tribunal in the case -of M\/s. Zunesh India Enterprises (supra), Shri Gopinath submitted that, in that appeal, the question was whether the imported goods could be considered as a ‘nut-making machine’ when threading was not done. The Tribunal held, in view of the evidence produced, that even if there was no threading, the imported machine could be called a ‘nut making machine’. Therefore, according to him, the ratio of the judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Referring to the Government of India decision cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants, Shri Gopinath submitted that this decision can have only a persuasive value and is not binding on the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
15. Shri Gujral, the learned Counsel, in his rejoinder, argued that the goods were described as ‘automatic nut making machine’ and the authorities below did not dismiss the claim. Therefore, the Revenue’s arguments should not be relied upon. Referring to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of ‘K. Mohan And Company, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Madras’<\/a> (supra), Shri Gujral argued that the machine would be considered ‘automatic’ even if at one stage manual transport is involved. He emphasised that in respect of the present machine, there was no manual process and the only manual thing involved was transport. He emphasised that the DGTD specifically stated that the heading in the OGL covered the machine and argued that to accept the imported goods as a “multistation automatic nut making machine” for purposes of OGL and not so for Customs, would not be logical or consistent. All seven processes together produced nuts and the machines do not do anything else but produce nuts. Referring to the Orders of the Tribunal (Order No. 868 & 869\/84-B2 dated 30.11.84), with special reference to paragraph-6 thereof, Shri Gujral argued that it is not the Accessories (Condition) Rules but Rule 2(a) of the Rules for Interpretation of the Schedule which was invoked for interpretation of the Exemption Notification in that judgment. He further pointed out that Serial No. 9 in the Table to the Notification was singular but the consession was extended to machines. He reiterated that the Exemption Notification should be liberally interpreted and the two units imported should be considered as a ‘single machine’.\n<\/p>\n
16. We have considered the arguments of both sides. Before proceeding to discuss the merits of these arguments, we are reproducing below Notification No. 40\/78-Cus:-\n<\/p>\n
“Notification No. 40-Cus., dated 1.3.1978 with subsequent amendments.\n<\/p>\n
The machines specified in the table below and falling within Ch. 84 are   exempt   from   so   much   of   that   portion   of   the   duty   of   customs leviable   thereon,   which   is   specified   in   the   First   Schedule,   to   the Customs Tariff Act,   1975,  as is in excess of 25 per cent, ad valorem.\n<\/p>\n
THE TABLE\n<\/p>\n
 ——————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
Sl. No.                                  Description\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n1 to 11   xxxxx                           xxxxx             xxxxx\n12.       Automatic Multi-Station Bolt or Nut Making Machine.\n13. to 21. xxxxx                           xxxxx             xxxxx\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n \n\n17. The basic  facts,  necessary  for a decision of this appeal, are clear enough and are not disputed.   These facts are that there were two machines, namely,   'Blanking  Press'   and  'Finishing Press'.    There  are  five  processes undertaken in the Blanking Press,  i.e. (a) flattening, (b) indenting, (c) cutoff, (d) chamfering,  and (e) planishing, and two processes in the Finishing Press,  namely,  (a)  calibrating,  and  (b)  piercing.     It  is  also admitted that at the end of the seventh process, nut blank, which is ready for threading, comes   into   existence.     [The   learned   Counsel   for   the   appellants   argued that a nut  blank comes into existence after sizing by the Blanking Press; we   shall   be   dealing   with   this   argument   elsewhere.]     The   threading   of this  blank   is   done   by  another  machine  with  which  are  not  concerned  as it is not the case of the Revenue that the absence of threading is a reason in  favour   of   the  Revenue.     It   is  also   admitted   that   both   the machines have been ordered by a single order, despatched under a single consignment and invoiced accordingly.\n \n\n18. The question before us is whether the imported goods are entitled to  the  exemption   of   the   Notification   in   view   of  these  facts.     We  have considered   the   argument   of   the   learned  Counsel   for   the   appellants  that the   Customs   have   considered   the   imported   goods   as   'automatic   multistation bolt or   nut    making machine'  for purposes of granting it OGL.   His argument was that having accepted the imported goods as such a machine for purposes of licensing, it is neither correct nor logical to hold otherwise for the purposes of  classification  under Customs Tariff and for the interpretation   of   the   notification   in   question.      On   a   careful   consideration, we   do   not   agree   with  this  argument.     Whatever  may  be  the  similarity in the wording in the Licensing Policy and in the Notification, the interpretation  placed  in connection with the licensing cannot be automatically applied   for   the   purpose   of   interpreting   the   Notification.      Besides,   we note that the DGTD gave certain opinion in this regard.    We do not agree with the arguments of the learned Counsel that the DGTD's opinion should also  have  persuaded  the Customs authorities while they were interpreting the notification as the letter itself shows the advice of the DGTD related only to the licensing aspect. 'Licensing' and 'exemption from Customs duty' are entirely different, and the advice given in connection with one cannot be sought to be automatically extended to another. Thus, while agreeing to the similarity in the description given in the Licensing Policy and in the Notification, we do not agree with the submissions of the learned Counsel in this regard.\n \n\n19.  We   note   Shri   Gujrals   argument   that   the   Collector   of   Customs (Appeals)   did   not  record  reasons  for  rejecting  the  opinion  of  the DGTD. While   we   agree   that   it  would  have  been  better  if  the Collector  did  so, we do not consider that the order is disqualified by the absence of reasons for not following the advice of the DGTD  as that advice was not binding on the Collector.\n \n\n<\/pre>\n
20. Shri   Gujral’s   argument,   that   Notes   to   Section-XVI   to   the   First Schedule   of   the  CTA   and   the  Rules  of  Interpretation   should   be  applied to   the   Notification,   has   been   considered   by   us.  The  Section   Notes   and the Rules of Interpretation are explicitly intended to be for the interpretation  of  the Tariff  and  its  various headings. It would not be,  therefore, proper to apply those Notes and Rules to the interpretation of the Notification.\n<\/p>\n
21. Shri  Gujral  referred  to  Order  No.  485\/84-B  dated   19.6.84,  passed by  the Tribunal.   We  have  perused  this order. In this case, the appellants imported ‘automatic multi-station nut making machine (the same description as of the machine before us). The concessional assessment under Notification  No.   40\/78   (the  same  notification as is before us) was denied on the ground   that   the   machine   imported   was   not   a   ‘nut making  machine’   but only   a   ‘nut   forming   machine’.   It   was   argued   before   the  Tribunal   that, technologically,  a machine which could perform  all the functions including threading did not exist. The Bench thereafter held that the machine imported  was  a  ‘multi-station  nut making machine’   even  though threading was not  done  by this machine. This order does not show that the  importation was  in  two  parts  as  is  the  case  here. The  issues before the Bench were different. The ratio of the Tribunal’s judgment does not, therefore,   apply to the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
22. The  Tribunal’s   order   No.   868   &   869\/84-B   dated   30.11.8′-;   (supra) was  also  perused  by  us. The  question  before  the Bench  was whether the imported, machines, referred to in the appeal, were designed for all operations   indicated   in   Notification   No.   49\/78-Cus.   The   Tribunal,   agreeing with  the  Appellate Collector,  held that  to decide the classification, what is important is to see whether the essential functions referred to in Serial No.   9   of   the   Notification   are   performed   by   the   imported   equipment, without going into the criteria of high or low accuracy of such functioning. The ratio is not relevant to the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
23. Shri  Gujral  argued  that  the Notification should be given a liberal interpretation. We have already declined to apply the opinion of the Licensing authority for the interpretation of the Notification. Shri Gujral brought to our notice a judgment of the Government of India in RE : TEAMS INDIA (supra)  wherein  the  Government  ordered  that  the  goods  concerned  should be  treated  as  marine  engines both  for purposes of classification as well as   the  Exemption  Notification. There  is  no  proposition  laid  down  in  this order.   As   argued   by   the   learned   SDR,   it   is   an   accepted   position   that a   notification   should   be   interpreted   on   the   basis   of   the   language   used therein   and   not   on   the   basis   of     intendment   or   by   supplying  words  or ignoring   them.   We   have   also   examined   Shri   Gujral’s   argument   that   the opinion of the expert should be considered. He cited the case of ‘K. Mohan & Co., Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Madras’ reported in ‘1984 (15) ELT WO’, and also cited ‘1984 ECR 1086’ and ‘1986 (6) ECR 33V. While we agree that expert opinion should be considered, we observe that it is the language of the notification and the facts of the matter which should be examined. An expert’s opinion has to be given due respect but it cannot be the deciding, or binding factor.\n<\/p>\n
24. Here, the Notification gives exemption to ‘Automatic Multi-station Bolt   or   Nut   making   Machine’.   Admittedly,   the   imported   goods  are   two machines. Shri Gujral’s argument, that the ‘singular’  should be interpreted as  ‘plural’,   does   not   appear   to   be  correct  inasmuch  as  both  sides  agree that,   while   there   is   no  machine   which  makes  bolts\/nuts  with  threading automatically,  both  sides  agree   that there  are  machines  which  make  nut blanks  in  a single unit. Infact, the appellants themselves,  in their  letter dated  15.9.83  to the Asstt. Collector, gave details of three such machines wherein   all   the   seven  operations are   done   in   a   single  machine.   During the course of hearing, it was explained that all these machines are costlier than   the   present   importation.   But,   for   the   purposes   of  the  Notification, we   note   that   the   three   machines,   details “of   which   were   given   by   the appellants, are single units which perform all the seven functions. Therefore, it   is   not   as   if   the  Exemption   Notification   referred  to  a machine  which does not exist.\n<\/p>\n
25. We   note,   with  approval,  Shri  Gopinath’s  argument  that  the  three qualifications,   for   an   imported   machine   to   qualify   for  the   Notification, are  that  –  (1)  it  should  be  automatic;  (2)  it  should be multi-station; and that (3) it should be a nut-making machine. The language of the notification clearly   shows   that   what   is  imported   should  be  a  ‘machine’.   We  do  not agree  that   we   should   equate  the   two  imported  machines to  a  ‘machine’ or to machinery.\n<\/p>\n
26. During the course of hearing,  it  came out that when the Blanking Press   finishes   the   five   processes,   the   nuts   are   manually   moved   to   the Finishing Press for the  final two operations. The machine, by requirement of the notification, should be automatic. The fact that manual interference has  to  be  there between the final  product  of  the Blanking Press and the first  stage of  the  Finishing Press,  shows that the operations are not fully automatic.  The   learned   Counsel’s   argument,   that   it   is   the   process   that should   be   automatic   and   not   the   movement,   is   not   acceptable   because in   a   fully-automatic   machine,   raw-material   is   inserted   at   one   end   and the   finished   product   comes   out   at   the   other   end.   Any   kind   of  manual interference  reduces  the  nature  of  automatic  operations.  In  this  context, we have taken note of the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of K. Mohan &  Co.,  Madras  v.  C.C.   Madras'(supra).  We note that the Tribunal therein considered   whether   an   automatic   cloth-cutting   machine   is   covered   by a  certain notification and held that there was a fallacy in the view that because  a  certain   amount   of  manual   effort   was   required   in   cutting  the garments, to   appropriate   pattern;   the   machine   was   not   automatic.  The Tribunal, in coming to the conclusion, took note that the concerned notification   contemplated   ‘automatic’    in   respect   of   the   process   of   cutting cloth.   In   the   present   notification,   there   is   no  such   stipulation  and  this is an entirely different machine.\n<\/p>\n
27.  Much was said about the seeming absurdity of the impugned order, in that, it granted concession to the Finishing Press but not to the Blanking Press as, according to the appellants and their Counsel, the two machines are integrated and the seven steps of production are inbuilt into the two. The   Customs   authorities   appear   to  have  taken  the   view  that   while  the first machine does not produce a nut, the second machine does. Shri Gujral’s argument, that a nut blank comes into existence after sizing done by the Blanking Press, is not acceptable because need for two more operations is quite apparent, and it is only after two more operations in the Finishing Press that- the nut is ready for threading. We, therefore, hold that the impugned order cannot be termed as ‘pervert’ in that it has granted concession to the Finishing Press and not to the Blanking Press.\n<\/p>\n
28. In the light of these discussions, we hold that the language of the Exemption Notification No. 40\/78-Cus. is quite clear. In view of this, any liberal interpretation, which would give unintended benefit to the appellants, is not justified. We further hold that the imported machines cannot be considered as one automatic machine. We also hold that the Rules of Interpretation and the Section Notes contained in the First Schedule to CTA, 1975, cannot be extended to the interpretation of Exemption Notifications. We further find that there is nothing pervert, or absurd, in the Appellate Collector’s order which gave exemption only to Finishing Machine. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Delhi Guest Keen Williams Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 19 February, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1987 (13) ECR 553 Tri Delhi, 1987 (29) ELT 68 Tri Del ORDER I.J. Rao, Member (T) 1. The appellants imported, under a Bill of Entry No. 1416 dated 24.2.83, two ‘Automatic Nut Making […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[41,33],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31990","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-customs-excise-and-gold-tribunal-delhi","category-tribunal"],"yoast_head":"\nGuest Keen Williams Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 19 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Guest Keen Williams Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 19 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1987-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-19T06:48:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Guest Keen Williams Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 19 February, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-19T06:48:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987\"},\"wordCount\":3602,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi\",\"Tribunal\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987\",\"name\":\"Guest Keen Williams Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 19 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-19T06:48:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Guest Keen Williams Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 19 February, 1987\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Guest Keen Williams Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 19 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Guest Keen Williams Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 19 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-19T06:48:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Guest Keen Williams Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 19 February, 1987","datePublished":"1987-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-19T06:48:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987"},"wordCount":3602,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi","Tribunal"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987","name":"Guest Keen Williams Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 19 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-19T06:48:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guest-keen-williams-ltd-vs-collector-of-customs-on-19-february-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Guest Keen Williams Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 19 February, 1987"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31990","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31990"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31990\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31990"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31990"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31990"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}