2021 (10) TMI 1341 - AT - Customs

Tribunal grants exemption under Notification No. 25/2002-Cus, focusing on goods' classification

INDUCTOTHERM INDIA PVT LTD Versus C.C. -AHMEDABAD

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal for exemption under Notification No. 25/2002-Cus. ... Benefit of exemption - Import of goods Automatic/Semi-automatic winding Machines, Automatic Testers for manufacture of Plastic Film Capacitors - eligibility for exemption under N/N. 25/2002-Cus. Dated 1.3.2002 as amended - case of the department is that as per the heading of the exemption notification i.e. Exemption to capital goods imported to use by IT/Electronic industry, since the appellants factory is not a IT/Electronic industry therefore as per the heading of the notification, they are not eligible for exemption - HELD THAT:- The exemption was denied merely on the basis that heading of the notification given by the publisher is of “Exemption to the goods of IT/Electronic industry” and also on the basis of budget speech. It is found that the heading is not a part of the notification however, the goods imported by the appellant is squarely covered under the table given in the notification and also the finished goods wherein the same is also clearly given in the table accordingly, the appellant is entitled for exemption. As regard the budget speech, the budget speech is also not a part of the notification, notification has to be read without putting anything either from the budget speech or any heading given by the publisher therefore, so long the goods are undisputedly covered under the table it is eligible for exemption notification 25/2000-Cus. The appellant is entitle only for exemption notification - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues involved: Whether the appellant's import of goods qualifies for exemption under Notification No. 25/2002-Cus. dated 1.3.2002 as amended when used in the manufacture of 'Plastic Film Capacitors.'Analysis:1. The issue revolved around the eligibility of the appellant's import of goods for exemption under a specific notification. The department contended that despite the items falling under the notification, the appellant, not being an IT/Electronic industry, was ineligible for exemption based on the notification's heading. The appellant argued that as long as the imported goods and finished products were covered under the notification, they should be entitled to exemption, emphasizing that the budget speech or publisher's heading was not part of the notification.2. The appellant's counsel cited various judgments to support their argument, highlighting that the exemption should not be denied solely based on the heading of the notification or the budget speech. The Tribunal noted that the goods imported by the appellant were clearly included in the notification's table, and the finished goods were also listed, making the appellant eligible for exemption.3. The Revenue's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order, supporting the denial of exemption to the appellant.4. Upon careful consideration of both sides' submissions and perusal of records, the Tribunal found that the exemption was wrongly denied based on the notification's heading and the budget speech. The Tribunal emphasized that the heading and budget speech were not part of the notification and should not influence the exemption eligibility. As long as the goods were covered under the notification's table, the appellant was entitled to exemption.5. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal for exemption under Notification No. 25/2002-Cus.