Textile machinery exemption applies to computerized pattern makers used with another machine, absent any restrictive condition in the notification.

Imported computerized pattern makers for textile use qualified for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. because the notification expressly covered computerized pattern maker/pattern grader/marker machinery and did not require independent operation. The Tribunal accepted unchallenged technical material and expert evidence showing the goods were capable of pattern creation and were commercially understood as pattern makers, not as loom parts or accessories. The fact that the machines were used in conjunction with another machine did not defeat the exemption, as no such restriction was imposed by the notification. The order granting exemption was sustained and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported electronic high performance computerized pattern makers were entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. notwithstanding the Revenue's case that they were accessories or parts of a loom and not independent machines.

Analysis: The exemption notification specifically listed computerized pattern maker/pattern grader/marker in the relevant list for textile industry machinery. The notification did not impose any condition that such machinery must operate independently or not be used in association with another machine. The imported goods were described in the supplier's literature as computerized pattern makers and were shown, on the technical material and expert opinion, to be capable of pattern creation for textile use. The expert evidence was not rebutted, and the Tribunal accepted the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding that the goods were commercially understood as pattern makers rather than parts of a loom. In such circumstances, the classification controversy did not defeat the exemption.

Conclusion: The imported goods were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The order granting exemption to the imported machinery was sustained and the Revenue appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification specifically covers a described machine for textile use, the benefit cannot be denied merely because the machine is used in conjunction with another machine, unless the notification itself imposes such a restriction.

---