Page 88 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

478 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

value is very strong, as observed in the judgments of this Court to which we
have already referred. Moreover, the Commissioner himself has referred to the
Explanatory Notes in the order-in-original while dealing with the respondent’s
stand. Thus, we see no reason as to why we should make a departure from the
general trend of taking assistance of these Explanatory Notes to resolve entry
related dispute. Now, on referring to these Explanatory Notes, we find that one
category of carpets [Textile carpets (Chapter 57)] has been excluded specifically
from parts and accessories. In our opinion, the subject-item does not satisfy the
third condition specified in Section XVII of the Explanatory Notes in relation to
“Ill-Parts and Accessories”. A plain reading of clause (C) thereof, which we have
quoted above, excludes “textile carpets” (Chapter 57).
26. The main argument of the appellant is that because the car mats are
made specifically for cars and are used also in cars, they should be identified as
parts and accessories. But if we go by that logic, textile carpets could not have
been excluded from Parts and Accessories. We have referred to such exclusion in
the preceding paragraph. It has also been urged on behalf of the revenue that
these items are not commonly identified as carpets but are different products.
The Tribunal on detailed analysis on various entries, Rules and Notes have
found they fit the description of goods under Chapter Heading 5703.90.90. We
accept this finding of the Tribunal. Once the subject goods are found to come
within the ambit of that sub-heading, for the sole reason that they are exclusively
made for cars and not for “home use” (in broad terms), those goods cannot be
transplanted to the residual entry against the Heading 8708. As we find the sub-
ject-goods come under the Chapter-Heading 5703.90.90, and the other entry un-
der the same Chapter forming the subject of dispute in the second order of the
Commissioner, in our opinion, there is no necessity to import the “common par-
lance” test or any other similar device of construction for identifying the position
of these goods against the relevant tariff entries.
27. For these reasons, we dismiss the appeals. The impugned decision
of the Tribunal is sustained.
28. Any connected applications shall also stand disposed of.
29. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 478 (S.C.)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (PORT), KOLKATA
Versus
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.
Civil Appeal No. 6398 of 2009, decided on 27-4-2020
1
Valuation (Customs) - Transaction value - Import of turnkey projects -
Basic designing and engineering fee - Whether “condition of sale” - Designs
and drawings related all post-importation project and project implementation
activities - No material to suggest that import of equipment effected with
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2006 (202) E.L.T. 374 (Tribunal), See also 2016 (332) E.L.T. A146 (S.C.).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  88