2005 (12) TMI 165 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant on jobbing activity under Exim Policy

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant's activity of segregating and exporting lead covered copper cable relay scrap constituted ... EXIM - Jobbing Issues:1. Denial of benefit of Notification No. 32/97-Cus. to the appellant for importing lead covered copper cable relay scrap for jobbing.2. Interpretation of the term 'jobbing' under the Exim Policy 2002-2007.3. Compliance with Customs (IDCRDMEG) Rules, 1996 for availing the benefit of the Notification.4. Relevance of certificate under Customs (IDCERDMEG) Rules, 1996 for eligibility.5. Consideration of Supreme Court decisions on the scope of the term 'manufacture.'6. Applicability of Board's Circular under Hazardous Waste (Management handling) Act 1986 to the case.Analysis:1. The appellant imported lead covered copper cable relay scrap for jobbing under Notification No. 32/97-Cus. The lower authorities denied the benefit citing that the process undertaken did not amount to jobbing as per the Exim Policy 2002-2007. The appellant segregated the coating and metal portions of the cable and re-exported them, receiving job charges. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial, stating that mere segregation does not constitute jobbing without manufacturing activity. The appellant challenged these findings before the Tribunal.2. The term 'jobbing' under the Exim Policy includes processing or working on raw materials or semi-finished goods to complete a part of the manufacturing process or finishing of an article. The appellant argued that jobbing need not result in complete manufacturing, contrary to the lower authorities' interpretation. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that jobbing can be a part process, and the activity of segregating and exporting the materials met the definition of jobbing under the Policy.3. The appellant followed Customs (IDCRDMEG) Rules, 1996 by registering with Central Excise and executing a bond. The Tribunal noted that the Rules do not mandate complete manufacturing for jobbing eligibility. Compliance with the Rules was not in question, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 32/97-Cus.4. The appellant's eligibility for the benefit was supported by the production of a certificate under Customs (IDCERDMEG) Rules, 1996. The Tribunal clarified that these rules apply even to non-excisable commodities, emphasizing that manufacturing as per Central Excise law is not a prerequisite for availing benefits under the Rules.5. The respondent's reliance on Supreme Court decisions regarding the scope of 'manufacture' was deemed irrelevant to the case. The Tribunal focused on the specific provisions of the Notification and the Exim Policy to determine the appellant's entitlement to the benefit.6. The Commissioner (Appeals) referenced a case and a Board's Circular related to hazardous waste, which the Tribunal found irrelevant to the issue at hand. The appellant was exporting the segregated materials, not dealing with hazardous waste. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order had no merit, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues involved, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal reasoning and conclusions reached by the Tribunal.