1996 (7) TMI 375

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Assistant Collector held that the machine as imported incorporated a gas flushing service. It did not incorporate flushing vacuumising equipment. Since Notification No. 125/86 under Sl. No. 17 referred to FFS with vacuumising and inert gas flushing the appellants were not eligible to exemption. Collector (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Collector. Hence this appeal. 3. Arguing for the appellants the Ld. Counsel submits that what is indicated in Sl. No. 17 of the Notification is a machine with one of the functions. How these facilities are to be utilised depends upon the type of goods which have to be packed. For instance they have to use inert gas because vacuuming in case of sweets would have the effect of deflating the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ckaging. This order which considering that there was no vacuumising in the subject machine held that these machines could be called a packing for flexible packaging system and therefore were exempted under Sl. No. 7 of Notification No. 47/84-Cus. 5.1. The matter relating exemption of form, fill and seal where the machines were only gas flushing facilities having no vacuumising facilities again came up before the Tribunal in case of Consolidated Petrotech Industries v. C.C. - 1992 (57) E.L.T. 81 (Tribunal). The Tribunal after considering series of decisions came to the conclusion that the word "and" used in Notification No. 125/86 against Sl. No. 17 has to be read as "or". The main reasoning which led the Tribunal to arrive at this c....