1992 (8) TMI 176

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 108/89, dated 1-3-1989. As regards ITC, it was claimed that the item fell under OGL Appendix 1, Part B, Item No. 7, S. No. 105 of ITC Policy AM 1988-91. 1.2 On examination of the goods alongwith the invoice the Customs authorities found that there were two machines bearing make Nos. D-19 and GEM 6 respectively. One of the machines i.e. D-19 was a mechanical print drier whereas GEM 6 was a panel printer. The appellants herein vide their letter dated 30-11-1989 claimed that the printing and curing processes were continuous processes and that the entry in the Policy as well as in the notification which are identical, should be taken to include both the machines. 1.3 The adjudicating authority on receipt of a clarification from the CCI ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the impugned goods..." 1.4 It is against the aforesaid finding of the adjudicating authority in the impugned order that the appellants have come in appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Learned advocate, Shri Harbans Singh for the appellants has urged that the reasoning of the adjudicating authority is erroneous. Entries are identical under OGL as well as in the exemption notification. When the adjudicating authority has given the benefit of OGL for the same entry, there is no reason as to why the benefit should not be given for the purpose of assessment. Only reason given is that the assessing authorities cannot go behind the rationale of the notification. Since the entry gives an impression that it covers only one machine, therefore, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s curing. He, therefore, submits that going by the plain language of the entry in the notification, the goods imported are not covered by the said Notification No. 16/85 read with Notification 108/89. Hence, he submits that the benefit of the said notification cannot be extended to the appellants. Once the language is clear one need not go into the rationale behind the notification, as observed by the adjudicating authority and the plain meaning to the language has to be given. 4. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced on both sides. We are inclined to agree with the learned advocate that the scope of entry in Notification 16/85 should not be different from that of the admitted scope of the identical entry in the ITC Policy in t....