TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court grants appeal on damaged imported parts, interpreting 'for use' in exemption notifications.</h1> <h3>BPL DISPLAY DEVICES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GHAZIABAD</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant's entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 13/97-Cus. as amended by ... Benefit of Notification No. 13/97-Cus. - Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 13/97-Cus. as amended by Notification No. 25/99-Cus - Held that:- benefit of the Notifications could not be denied in respect of goods which were intended for use for manufacture of the final product but could not be so used due shortage or leakage. The Notifications relied upon in the decision in National Organic Chemical Indus. Ltd. (1999 (5) TMI 388 - CEGAT, MUMBAI) are substantially similar to the present Notification. The Tribunal, however, relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut v. M/s. BPL Display Devices Ltd. reported in [2002 (7) TMI 446 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] to hold against the appellant. This Court following the affirmation of the Tribunal's reasoning in National Organic Chemicals Indus. Ltd. (supra) on 20-2-2002, allowed the appellant's appeal. This appeal must therefore be necessarily allowed. We are of the view that no material distinction can be drawn between the loss on account of leakage and loss on account of damage. The words 'for use' used in similar exemption Notifications have also been construed by this Court earlier in the State of Haryana v. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd., [1987 (11) TMI 94 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] to mean 'intended for use'. According to this decision the object of grant of exemption was only to debar those importer/manufacturers from the benefit of the Notifications who had diverted the products imported for other purposes and had no intention to use the same for manufacture of the specified items at any stage - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Entitlement to benefit of Notification No. 13/97-Cus. as amended by Notification No. 25/99-Cus. for imported parts of picture tubes damaged in transit.Analysis:The appeal before the Supreme Court revolved around the entitlement of the appellant to the benefit of Notification No. 13/97-Cus. as amended by Notification No. 25/99-Cus. These notifications offer benefits to specified items imported into India 'for use' in the manufacture of other specified items. The appellant had imported parts of picture tubes for manufacturing color picture tubes, with both the imported parts and the manufactured items falling under the purview of the notifications. A small percentage of the imported parts were damaged in transit during 2000-2001, rendering them unusable for manufacturing picture tubes. The appellant sought to claim the benefit of the notifications for the entire lot of imported parts, citing a previous Tribunal decision and subsequent Court ruling in a related case. The Tribunal, however, relied on a different precedent to rule against the appellant.The Supreme Court, in its analysis, highlighted the similarity between the notifications in question and those in previous cases. It noted that a loss due to damage should be treated no differently than a loss due to leakage, emphasizing that the term 'for use' in the exemption notifications should be construed to mean 'intended for use.' Referring to a prior decision, the Court clarified that the purpose of granting exemptions was to prevent importers or manufacturers from diverting imported products for other purposes, with no intention of using them for manufacturing specified items. The Court ultimately allowed the appeal, concluding that there was no substantial distinction between losses incurred due to leakage or damage, and affirming the appellant's entitlement to the benefit of the notifications.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal without imposing any costs, thereby ruling in favor of the appellant's entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 13/97-Cus. as amended by Notification No. 25/99-Cus. for the imported parts of picture tubes damaged in transit.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
