2004 (6) TMI 500

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed to them. The finding recorded by the Commissioner in Paras 4 to 7 is reproduced. "4. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the Auto Clipping Machine is a machine for production of commodities. As per the appellants themselves "the machine is useful for clip/seal the side ends of pleated filter paper" used in the manufacture of filters. The activity of clipping/sealing of side ends of the pleated filter paper cannot be said to be "production of commodities". In the case of Venkataramana Hatcheries v. CTO (66 STC 154 AP) it has been held that 'commodity' is a term used in a commercial sense and means any movable and tangible thing that is ordinarily produced or used as a subject of sale. A commodity is also described as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Bangalore, is upheld and the appeal bearing No. 143/97-Cus. filed by M/s. Elofic Inds. Ltd., is rejected." 2. We have heard ld. Counsel, Shri Shivadass for the appellants and ld. SDR, Shri P.M. Saleem for the Revenue. 3. Ld. Counsel Shri Shivadass pointed out that the functions of the machine imported is to clip/seal both the side ends of the pleated paper according to the printed pamphlet. The steel clip coil is fed to the machine for sealing both the edges of the clipping filter paper, which automatically bends the steel clip and cut to size. They stated that the steel clipped paper has both the edges produced by the said machine as an essential part or component or intermediate product of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tal) imported for washing and drying glass and glass articles was held to be not a machine meant for production of commodities and hence the benefit was not extended. He further relied on the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Food Specialities Ltd. v. CC, Bombay [1997 (94) E.L.T. 112 (Tribunal)] wherein sifter was used only for sifting coffee granules according to their sizes in a machine though connected with production of a commodity, but it itself did not result in production of a commodity and it merely helped in the marketing of a commodity. Therefore, the benefit was not extended. Ld. SDR also relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. CC, Bombay [1997 (90) E.L.T. 307 (Tribunal), wherein also....